From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gdb-patches-return-83447-listarch-gdb-patches=sources.redhat.com@sourceware.org>
Received: (qmail 17858 invoked by alias); 2 Sep 2011 10:04:39 -0000
Received: (qmail 17841 invoked by uid 22791); 2 Sep 2011 10:04:38 -0000
X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.1 required=5.0	tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RP_MATCHES_RCVD
X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
Received: from mail.codesourcery.com (HELO mail.codesourcery.com) (38.113.113.100)    by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Fri, 02 Sep 2011 10:04:19 +0000
Received: (qmail 15205 invoked from network); 2 Sep 2011 10:04:17 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO tp.orcam.me.uk) (macro@127.0.0.2)  by mail.codesourcery.com with ESMTPA; 2 Sep 2011 10:04:17 -0000
Date: Fri, 02 Sep 2011 10:06:00 -0000
From: "Maciej W. Rozycki" <macro@codesourcery.com>
To: Richard Sandiford <rdsandiford@googlemail.com>
cc: binutils@sourceware.org, gdb-patches@sourceware.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] MIPS/BFD: Fix assertions with SGI IRIX files
In-Reply-To: <87vctdl4p1.fsf@firetop.home>
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.1.10.1109021057200.22353@tp.orcam.me.uk>
References: <alpine.DEB.1.10.1108181530580.4083__36247.0631408089$1313685694$gmane$org@tp.orcam.me.uk> <m3hb5dpwk6.fsf@richards-thinkpad.stglab.manchester.uk.ibm.com> <alpine.DEB.1.10.1108311837450.5774@tp.orcam.me.uk> <87vctdl4p1.fsf@firetop.home>
User-Agent: Alpine 1.10 (DEB 962 2008-03-14)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gdb-patches.sourceware.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gdb-patches-subscribe@sourceware.org>
List-Archive: <http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/>
List-Post: <mailto:gdb-patches@sourceware.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs>
Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org
X-SW-Source: 2011-09/txt/msg00027.txt.bz2

On Wed, 31 Aug 2011, Richard Sandiford wrote:

> >> A patch to remove the assertions is pre-approved if you agree that's OK.
> >
> >  OK, but are you positive that'll be no regression?
> 
> This is binutils.  You can never be positive that a patch won't break
> something.  But the handling of SHN_MIPS_DATA and SHN_MIPS_TEXT isn't
> written in an SGI-specific way (just as the handling of the other
> SHN_MIPS_* sections isn't written in an SGI-specific way).  I couldn't see,
> and still can't see, a reason why removing the assertions is wrong.

 OK, this is good enough a justification for me, thanks for investigating.  
I meant any improper handling within BFD itself of course.  I'll make that 
change and push it at my earliest convenience.  It may take a couple of 
days.

  Maciej