Re: [obish] More osabi comments

[Andrew Cagney <ac131313@redhat.com>]

>> +      /* 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"
>> +         (or more generally "64-bit ISA can run code for the 32-bit
>> +         ISA").  Fortunatly, BFD doesn't normally consider 32-bit and
>> +         64-bit "compatible" so won't get a match.  */
> 
> 
> (Incomplete sentence in there.)

You missed the "fortunately".

> This comment implies that can_run_code_for (A, B) might return zero
> when A actually can run code for B.

That's both correct and the intent: "amd64 can run code for i386", 
"ppc64 can run code or ppc", "sh64 can run code for sh", "mips64 can run 
code for mips", and "ia64 can run code for ia32".  They all fortunately 
return zero.

Andrew