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] [ARC] Improve filtering instructions while disassembling.

> However, it concerns me that you feel GNU should accept a sub-standard
> solution while some other non-free, non-GNU toolchain decides what it
> wants to do.

I am really confuse here, what are the sub-standard solutions which are u referring to? And what is the GNU standard which you also invoke? 

 > I am all for compatibility wherever possible, but this project "just"
> a free knock-off of some other toolchain, it is a first class project
> in its own right, and deserves first class solutions to all problems
> wherever possible.

Not sure how to interpret this paragraph either. We (Synopsys) are in the process of upgrading the ARC ABI exactly for this reason: to get first class solutions always among all our toolchains. I do not understand on what basis you do the above accusations.
> Given that we can see this solution you propose is not the way to go
> in the long term (and I think we agree there) then I disagree
> _strongly_ that we should therefore accept a second rate solution in
> the short term.

Your opposition is noted. I have updated the patch using options, and this is solving the disassembler problem. The proposed solution is not unique among other backends, and hence, it cannot be neither called "second rate solution" nor out of GNU standards.

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