From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gdb-patches-return-28196-listarch-gdb-patches=sources.redhat.com@sources.redhat.com>
Received: (qmail 13208 invoked by alias); 24 Oct 2003 22:14:27 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gdb-patches-subscribe@sources.redhat.com>
List-Archive: <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/gdb-patches/>
List-Post: <mailto:gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com>
List-Help: <mailto:gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/#faqs>
Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sources.redhat.com
Received: (qmail 13190 invoked from network); 24 Oct 2003 22:14:26 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO localhost.redhat.com) (207.219.125.105)
  by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 24 Oct 2003 22:14:26 -0000
Received: from redhat.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by localhost.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id 83E542B89; Fri, 24 Oct 2003 18:14:27 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <3F99A443.8070207@redhat.com>
Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2003 22:14:00 -0000
From: Andrew Cagney <ac131313@redhat.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; NetBSD macppc; en-US; rv:1.0.2) Gecko/20030820
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Jim Blandy <jimb@redhat.com>
Cc: Andrew Cagney <ac131313@redhat.com>,
	gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com
Subject: Re: [obish] More osabi comments
References: <3F9948BA.4050201@redhat.com> <vt2u15yqpgk.fsf@zenia.home>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-SW-Source: 2003-10/txt/msg00757.txt.bz2


>> +      /* 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