This is the mail archive of the 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: Add support for XGATE CPU and update M68HCS12X port

I can't comment on the opcode table stuff, however I will comment on
the postscript and point out that the entire XGATE part (the bulk of
the work) is completely and utterly different to your "interesting"
approach, so this is a fairly weak email, at best. If Sean did use
your work in any way shape or form, however minor and irrelevant, I
expect him to publicly apologise to you, the list, and me for doing
that while I was backing him.

> PS. I thought we had agreed that we would collaborate and you would help
> test my XGATE patches instead of submitting 'rival' work?

I have no idea what Sean did or did not say with respect to
collaboration, however for you to say that he was working on "rival"
work after agreeing to collaborate is quite simply absurd. As
previously mentioned on this list, Sean began work on his XGATE tools
whilst you were refusing to share yours with us to stifle competition
from an open source project. If you'd shared your work up front, you'd
likely have worked together from the start and be submitting together.
That's not what happened, though, what happened was that you "hid"
your binutils and GCC changes and used them privately to develop MS3.
That's NOT the open source way, James, not at all. If not for your
behaviour Sean would have had a lot more time to work on FreeEMS,
exactly what you were hoping to achieve. Congratulations. As
previously mentioned, what you did, though not illegal, is certainly
immoral and anti-social. How you can, after doing that, expect any
positive interaction with the community on which you defecated is
totally beyond me.

If I sound a little irritated (to under state it) you're right,
however it's only 20% at you, James, for that outrageous statement.

As much as I'd like this inappropriate political material to weigh
into which XGATE code gets included, if any, it shouldn't. The best
architecture and code should win, which ever that is. The fact that
there are two for the experts on this list to pick from only serves to
strengthen the quality of this port going forward. Obviously I hope
Sean has chosen the right path and done a better job, as it would
sicken my, physically, to have your XGATE work included at this point.
However if that proves to not be the case, I'll swallow my medicine
like a man. I certainly won't complain about it in a PS!



On Thu, Mar 1, 2012 at 12:32 AM, James Murray <> wrote:
> (Extracted from Sean's patch.)
> --------
> diff --git src/opcodes/m68hc11-opc.c src/opcodes/m68hc11-opc.c
> index ac6259d..b66ef6a 100644
> --- src/opcodes/m68hc11-opc.c
> +++ src/opcodes/m68hc11-opc.c
> @@ -2,6 +2,8 @@
> ? ?Copyright 1999, 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 Free Software Foundation,
> Inc.
> ? ?Written by Stephane Carrez (
> + ? S12X updates by Sean Keys(
> +
> ? ?This file is part of the GNU opcodes library.
> --------
> I disagree, the changes appear to be mostly my work, but with your name
> at the top.
> There are tell-tale identical comments and the mistake I made with
> rorx/rory is there too.
> You patch does not appear to include support for the new extended modes
> of some of the S12X opcodes in tc-m68hc11.c (movb,movw,sex)
> I haven't reviewed it any further than that.
> regards
> James
> PS. I thought we had agreed that we would collaborate and you would help
> test my XGATE patches instead of submitting 'rival' work?

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