This is the mail archive of the binutils@sourceware.org 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: 68hc11/12/s12x/xgate patch


Hi Nick,

It's really exciting to see James' general fixes and additions to some
of the S12 architecture code make it into the source. Thank you for
finally getting around to doing that, I know quite a few people will
appreciate it.

What's less exciting, or perhaps, somewhat disturbing, is that you
included the XGATE portion of James' work, which you have previously
described as "A magnet for bugs". I agree with your initial prognosis
and, quite frankly, I'm not comfortable using the official sources to
build binaries for my users. Our application isn't a typical software
system, in fact, quite the opposite. Thousands of dollars of hardware
are at stake with each installation, and a failure from a new S12
binutils bug could potentially lead to loss of life. Currently our
system has a clean reputation that I'm unenthusiastic about
compromising, especially in a life threatening way.

References:

http://cygwin.com/ml/binutils/2012-01/msg00057.html
http://cygwin.com/ml/binutils/2012-01/msg00087.html
http://cygwin.com/ml/binutils/2012-01/msg00089.html

Due to the current state of the S12 code, as of today, I'll now have
to build and distribute binaries based on a fork or older version.
It's unfortunate that this extra work load has not subsided as it
appeared it was soon going to. I look forward to a time when I can
have faith in the vanilla S12 binutils again and shall be personally
taking measures to make that happen as soon as possible.

Regards,

Fred.

On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 2:55 PM, nick clifton <nickc@redhat.com> wrote:
>
> Hi James,
>
>> just wondered if you had found time to review the patch I submitted.
>> (Patch is in http://sourceware.org/ml/binutils/2012-03/msg00123.html )
>
>
> Sorry it has taken me so long to review this patch, and thanks for the ping.
>
> I have now gone over the patch. ?There were a few formatting issues, but these were minor. ?The main thing (to me) is that it works and it does not break any other ports. ?So I have checked it in.
>
> This does mean that we now have two different ways of supporting the XGATE processor. ?I feel that the best way to resolve this is to see how these two ports fare in the long term. ?If one of them turns out to be too buggy or unmaintained then it will be dropped.
>
> Cheers
> ?Nick
>
>


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