This is the mail archive of the
cgen@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the CGEN project.
Re: New Sanyo Stormy16 relocations
- From: Doug Evans <dje at transmeta dot com>
- To: DJ Delorie <dj at delorie dot com>
- Cc: amacleod at redhat dot com, amodra at bigpond dot net dot au, binutils at sources dot redhat dot com, cgen at sources dot redhat dot com
- Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2002 11:24:08 -0800 (PST)
- Subject: Re: New Sanyo Stormy16 relocations
- References: <1039041358.28757.307.camel@p4><20021204225643.GS27956@bubble.sa.bigpond.net.au><1039043233.28767.313.camel@p4><200212170353.gBH3r9f14238@envy.delorie.com>
DJ Delorie writes:
> I'm committing this approved patch on Andrew's behalf. The cgen parts
> were approved by FChE off-list.
>
> > bfd/ChangeLog
> > * elf32-xstormy16.c (xstormy16_elf_howto): Add R_XSTORMY16_LO16
> > and R_XSTORMY16_HI16) howto entries.
> > (xstormy16_reloc_map): Map R_XSTORMY16_{LO,HI}16 to BFD_RELOC_{LO,HI}16.
> > (xstormy16_info_to_howto_rela): Use R_XSTORMY16_GNU_VTINHERIT to
> > determine the start of the second reloc table.
> >
> > cgen/ChangeLog
> > * cpu/xstormy16.cpu (imm16): Call handler immediate16.
> > * cpu/xstormy16.opc (parse_small_immediate): Return on '@'.
> > (parse_immediate16): Handle immediate16 values, which now include
> > @hi(label) and @lo(label)
> >
> > gas/ChangeLog
> > * config/tc-xstormy16.c (md_cgen_lookup_reloc): If a relocation
> > has already been set up, use it.
> >
> > include/ChangeLog
> > * elf/xstormy16.h (START_RELOC_NUMBERS) Add relocation numbers
> > for R_XSTORMY16_LO16 and R_XSTORMY16_HI16.
> >
> > opcodes/ChangeLog
> > * opcodes/xstormy16-asm.c: Regenerate.
Having to get cgen approval for cpu-specific changes sucks.
People should be able to police their own ports.
gcc port maintainers don't have to get approval for changes to their
ports. I don't understand why this would be any different.
Is there a reason for this (anal-retentive) procedure?
[I'm not suggesting you or anyone else is actually imposing this of course.
Maybe people just think that's the way things are.]
But, if approval is required, methinks binutils is a better place to
provide approval for .opc changes (e.g. complaints about warnings :-).