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/RFA] Add sh5*-*-netbsd* and sh64*-*-netbsd* targets


On Mon, Jun 03, 2002 at 04:06:48PM -0400, Hans-Peter Nilsson wrote:
> Looks fine to me, except for some formatting issues 8-P with the
> ChangeLog:
> 
> >
> > bfd/
> > 	* Makefile.am (BFD32_BACKENDS): Add elf32-sh64-nbsd.lo.
> > 	(BFD32_BACKENDS_CFILES): Add elf32-sh64-nbsd.c.
> > 	(BFD64_BACKENDS): Add elf64-sh64-nbsd.lo.
> > 	(BFD64_BACKENDS_CFILES): Add elf64-sh64-nbsd.c.
> > 	(elf32-sh64-nbsd.lo)
> > 	(elf64-sh64-nbsd.lo): New rules.
> 
> Should be
> 	(elf32-sh64-nbsd.lo, elf64-sh64-nbsd.lo): New rules.
> or
> 	(elf32-sh64-nbsd.lo): New rules.
> 	(elf64-sh64-nbsd.lo): Ditto.

Having just watched Jason get picked on on the GDB list about this...
the GNU Coding Standards disagree with you.  They actually mandate:

	* foofile (func1, func2, function3, function4, function5)
	(function6): New.

No one seems to like this, but it's definitely there.

-- 
Daniel Jacobowitz                           Carnegie Mellon University
MontaVista Software                         Debian GNU/Linux Developer


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