From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 6195 invoked by alias); 15 Sep 2009 13:38:36 -0000 Received: (qmail 6187 invoked by uid 22791); 15 Sep 2009 13:38:35 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.8 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SARE_MSGID_LONG40,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mail-fx0-f225.google.com (HELO mail-fx0-f225.google.com) (209.85.220.225) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Tue, 15 Sep 2009 13:38:28 +0000 Received: by fxm25 with SMTP id 25so2892141fxm.24 for ; Tue, 15 Sep 2009 06:38:26 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.204.9.1 with SMTP id j1mr6313130bkj.185.1253021906520; Tue, 15 Sep 2009 06:38:26 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <77f815bd0909150619y7996f1a7lfdfc2e79bbd88b22@mail.gmail.com> Date: Tue, 15 Sep 2009 13:38:00 -0000 Message-ID: <77f815bd0909150638s49b0ce27g722a005384f495a6@mail.gmail.com> Subject: Re: Which version of binutils matches the BFD and Opcode in GDB6.8? From: xingxing pan To: Doug Evans Cc: gdb Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2009-09/txt/msg00201.txt.bz2 You mean there are two groups of people maintain the bfd/opcode respectively? Why not use one bfd/opcode? What's the difference? 2009/9/15 Doug Evans : > On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 6:19 AM, xingxing pan wrote: >> Are the BFD and Opcode in GDB6.8 from the binutils or developed >> separately from binutils? > > Depends on what you mean by "separate". :-) > > They do come from the same source tree, and so are not separate in > that sense, *but* they are released at different times, and so one > can't, technically, match bfd/opcodes from a binutils release with the > ones in a gdb release. >