Re: [obish] More osabi comments

[Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@mvista.com>]

On Fri, Oct 24, 2003 at 11:43:54AM -0400, Andrew Cagney wrote:
> More comments the better ...
> 
> Recent discussions to do with rs6000 compatibility left me wondering how 
> come "amd64 can run code for i386" wasn't getting a hit.   The attached 
> comment explains why the test (both old and new) works for the 32-bit vs 
> 64-bit case.
> 
> I also changed "atom" to the more common OO term "singleton".
> 
> committed,
> Andrew

> @@ -333,6 +333,14 @@
>  	 type that is compatible with the desired machine type.  Right
>  	 now we simply return the first match, which is fine for now.
>  	 However, we might want to do something smarter in the future.  */
> +      /* NOTE: cagney/2003-10-23: The code for "a can_run_code_for b"
> +         is implemented using BFD's compatible method (a->compatible
> +         (b) == a -- the lowest common denominator between a and b is
> +         a).  That method's definition of compatible may not be as you
> +         expect.  For instance, while "amd64 can run code for i386"

Did you mean to have another clause, or is this "while" left over?

> +         (or more generally "64-bit ISA can run code for the 32-bit
> +         ISA").  Fortunatly, BFD doesn't normally consider 32-bit and

"Fortunately"

> +         64-bit "compatible" so won't get a match.  */

-- 
Daniel Jacobowitz
MontaVista Software                         Debian GNU/Linux Developer