This is the mail archive of the binutils@sources.redhat.com mailing list for the binutils project.

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format:	[Raw text]

Re: PATCH: Rearrange SEC_XXX bits

From: "H. J. Lu" <hjl at lucon dot org>
To: Andrew Cagney <cagney at gnu dot org>
Cc: binutils at sources dot redhat dot com
Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2005 11:40:54 -0800
Subject: Re: PATCH: Rearrange SEC_XXX bits
References: <20050221211925.GB14151@lucon.org> <421C983D.8050201@gnu.org>

On Wed, Feb 23, 2005 at 09:50:37AM -0500, Andrew Cagney wrote:
> H. J. Lu wrote:
> >We have very limited space in BFD section flag. But SEC_ARCH_BIT_0 is
> >never used. There are also some COFF and TI specific bits. This patch
> >removes SEC_ARCH_BIT_0 and makes COFF/TI specific bits for COFF/TI
> >only so that other format/target can reuse those bits.
> 
> FYI, this looks to break gdb's dump.exp testcase (that test writes out 
> then reads back random object file formats verifying the result).  Right 
> now I consider this 'weird'.
> 

I don't see how my patch should change anything. In any case, I got

Running /export/gnu/src/gdb/gdb/gdb/testsuite/gdb.base/detach.exp ...
Running /export/gnu/src/gdb/gdb/gdb/testsuite/gdb.base/display.exp ...
Running /export/gnu/src/gdb/gdb/gdb/testsuite/gdb.base/dump.exp ...
Running /export/gnu/src/gdb/gdb/gdb/testsuite/gdb.base/echo.exp ...

It looks fine to me.


H.J.

Follow-Ups:
- Re: PATCH: Rearrange SEC_XXX bits
  - From: Andrew Cagney

References:
- PATCH: Rearrange SEC_XXX bits
  - From: H. J. Lu
- Re: PATCH: Rearrange SEC_XXX bits
  - From: Andrew Cagney

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]