From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 1217 invoked by alias); 27 Oct 2003 15:28:44 -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 1210 invoked from network); 27 Oct 2003 15:28:44 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO localhost.redhat.com) (207.219.125.105) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 27 Oct 2003 15:28:44 -0000 Received: from redhat.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DF3C82B89; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 10:28:43 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <3F9D39AB.6010009@redhat.com> Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2003 15:28:00 -0000 From: Andrew Cagney 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 Cc: Andrew Cagney , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [obish] More osabi comments References: <3F9948BA.4050201@redhat.com> <3F99A443.8070207@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2003-10/txt/msg00779.txt.bz2 > The bfd_mach_foo things refer to ISAs, not chips. So the > 'can_run_code_for' is talking about whether one ISA is an > upwards-compatible extension of another, not a question of which ISAs > a chip may implement. Is the ISA / chip distinction the one the > comment is trying to make? This is how it now reads: /* 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 the test "amd64 can run code for i386" (or more generally "64-bit ISA can run code for the 32-bit ISA"). BFD doesn't normally consider 32-bit and 64-bit "compatible" so it doesn't succeed. */ enjoy, Andrew