From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 32717 invoked by alias); 29 Apr 2009 20:33:22 -0000 Received: (qmail 32709 invoked by uid 22791); 29 Apr 2009 20:33:21 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from NaN.false.org (HELO nan.false.org) (208.75.86.248) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Wed, 29 Apr 2009 20:33:16 +0000 Received: from nan.false.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 17E4A10738 for ; Wed, 29 Apr 2009 20:33:15 +0000 (GMT) Received: from caradoc.them.org (209.195.188.212.nauticom.net [209.195.188.212]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0150C10554 for ; Wed, 29 Apr 2009 20:33:15 +0000 (GMT) Received: from drow by caradoc.them.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1LzGSw-00015r-5P for gdb-patches@sourceware.org; Wed, 29 Apr 2009 16:33:14 -0400 Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2009 20:33:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: Mingw GDB build fails for M16C target Message-ID: <20090429203314.GA4187@caradoc.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: gdb-patches@sourceware.org References: <82C3BC9106BCE149B63464D79D0A22FD0A68110C@sohm.kpit.com> <20090428155724.1797d332@redhat.com> <20090429023511.GA2873@caradoc.them.org> <20090429125049.054d90b8@redhat.com> <20090429200124.GA961@caradoc.them.org> <20090429132702.57adecb3@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20090429132702.57adecb3@redhat.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17 (2008-05-11) X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2009-04/txt/msg00796.txt.bz2 On Wed, Apr 29, 2009 at 01:27:02PM -0700, Kevin Buettner wrote: > > Yes... I don't think any of the conversion routines that use host > > numbers should be there. I'm not feeling ambitious enough to remove > > them from all sims, but perhaps you can get just m32c? > > Yes, I have done this. See above. Gotcha now! Sounds good to me. -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery