Re: [PATCH][SH] Add missing architectures

[Andrew STUBBS <andrew dot stubbs at st dot com>]

Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> You can actually get files tagged with these?  The whole complicated
> tree of bfd_mach_* values for SH confuses me horribly.

Of course, the assembler just chooses the first architecture that 
provides all the instructions the program uses. If there are two 
possible architectures then it'll choose one of the intermediate 
'architectures'. If it didn't do it this way it would have to make an 
arbitrary decision about which to choose and would then tell half the 
users they can't link against incompatible architectures.

I know it's complicated - I spend ages trying to get it all to work 
right last year, after the Red Hat SH2A port broke it all. Maybe there 
is a simpler way, but I've never come up with one that didn't turn out 
to be a different way of getting to the exact same place.

There's a diagram in opcodes/sh-opc.h that describes the instruction 
inheritance graph. That's just the public ones. Our internal sources 
have even more architectures and look even more hideous.

> > 2006-03-08  Andrew Stubbs  <andrew.stubbs@st.com>
> >
> > 	* sh-tdep.c (sh_gdbarch_init): Add missing architectures.
>
> OK.

Thanks, committed.

Andrew