From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 30772 invoked by alias); 31 Mar 2005 07:51:25 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 30740 invoked from network); 31 Mar 2005 07:51:21 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (66.187.233.31) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 31 Mar 2005 07:51:21 -0000 Received: from int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (int-mx1.corp.redhat.com [172.16.52.254]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id j2V7pLA3008036 for ; Thu, 31 Mar 2005 02:51:21 -0500 Received: from potter.sfbay.redhat.com (potter.sfbay.redhat.com [172.16.27.15]) by int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id j2V7pGO19738 for ; Thu, 31 Mar 2005 02:51:16 -0500 Received: from cygbert.vinschen.de (vpn50-66.rdu.redhat.com [172.16.50.66]) by potter.sfbay.redhat.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id j2V7pDgp016579 for ; Thu, 31 Mar 2005 02:51:14 -0500 Received: by cygbert.vinschen.de (Postfix, from userid 500) id B64F157D73; Thu, 31 Mar 2005 09:51:05 +0200 (CEST) Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2005 07:51:00 -0000 From: Corinna Vinschen To: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [RFA] Resurrect sh64 target Message-ID: <20050331075105.GA2495@cygbert.vinschen.de> Reply-To: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Mail-Followup-To: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com References: <20050330174336.GQ2495@cygbert.vinschen.de> <200503301809.j2UI94ea020905@elgar.sibelius.xs4all.nl> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200503301809.j2UI94ea020905@elgar.sibelius.xs4all.nl> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2i X-SW-Source: 2005-03/txt/msg00396.txt.bz2 On Mar 30 20:09, Mark Kettenis wrote: > Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2005 19:43:36 +0200 > From: Corinna Vinschen > > Hi, > > the below patch resurrects sh64-elf. I reworked the sh64 code so that it > doesn't use any deprecated mechanism anymore but all new stuff, except for > the DEPRECATED_TM_FILE, which I'm not sure how to circumvent. > > By investing some time in truly multi-arching the shared library code. > > Andrew has made it absolutely clear (by reverting one of my patches) > that you're not allowed to check something in that sets > DEPRECATED_TM_FILE. I'm still a bit frustrated at that, so sorry for > this unhelpful message. Oh well. But sh64 is not a new target. It's just brought up to date. Corinna -- Corinna Vinschen Cygwin Project Co-Leader Red Hat, Inc.