This is the mail archive of the
binutils@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the binutils project.
Re: [PATCH/RFA] Add sh5*-*-netbsd* and sh64*-*-netbsd* targets
- From: Hans-Peter Nilsson <hp at bitrange dot com>
- To: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow at mvista dot com>
- Cc: Jason R Thorpe <thorpej at wasabisystems dot com>, <binutils at sources dot redhat dot com>
- Date: Mon, 3 Jun 2002 16:29:43 -0400 (EDT)
- Subject: Re: [PATCH/RFA] Add sh5*-*-netbsd* and sh64*-*-netbsd* targets
On Mon, 3 Jun 2002, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> 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.
I can't see that at
<URL:http://www.gnu.org/prep/standards.html#SEC42>. Do you mean
it agrees with Jason's last two entries above?
> They actually mandate:
>
> * foofile (func1, func2, function3, function4, function5)
> (function6): New.
Well, that's what I wrote, except I left out the line with the
file, since it was higher up in the change and not part of my
nitpic:
* Makefile.am (BFD32_BACKENDS): Add elf32-sh64-nbsd.lo.
...
(elf32-sh64-nbsd.lo, elf64-sh64-nbsd.lo): New rules.
Note that it's not the file elf32-sh64-nbsd.lo etc. we talk
about, it's the build rule for those files.
> No one seems to like this, but it's definitely there.
Newsflash: I like it. :-)
brgds, H-P