Re: sh64-elf (SH5) port: directory opcodes

[Alexandre Oliva <aoliva at redhat dot com>]

On Feb 10, 2002, Hans-Peter Nilsson <hp@bitrange.com> wrote:

> On Fri, 8 Feb 2002, Hans-Peter Nilsson wrote:
>> On 8 Feb 2002, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>> > On Feb  8, 2002, Hans-Peter Nilsson <hp@bitrange.com> wrote:
>> > > Is that an agreement to keep it in "sh" and keeping it out of
>> > > sh[1-4]{le,be} ?
>> >
>> > How's this?  Ok to install?  If I don't read objections, I'll check it
>> > in soon.
>> 
>> I have no objections to that patch.

> (That is,
> <URL:http://sources.redhat.com/ml/binutils/2002-02/msg00277.html>)

> ... except that it broke sh-elf, because the corresponding bfd
> changes weren't done.  When linking objdump:

Ugh!  I always get the dependency between opcodes and bfd wrong :-(  I
had built all-opcodes after installing my patch, but since bfd depends
on opcodes, and not the other way round as I always think it to be the
case, I didn't get that far :-(

My apologies.  Thanks for cleaning up after my mistake.

-- 
Alexandre Oliva   Enjoy Guarana', see http://www.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
Red Hat GCC Developer                  aoliva@{cygnus.com, redhat.com}
CS PhD student at IC-Unicamp        oliva@{lsd.ic.unicamp.br, gnu.org}
Free Software Evangelist                Professional serial bug killer