Re: New Sanyo Stormy16 relocations

[Doug Evans <dje at transmeta dot com>]

DJ Delorie writes:
 > I'm committing this approved patch on Andrew's behalf.  The cgen parts
 > were approved by FChE off-list.
 > 
 > > bfd/ChangeLog
 > > 	* elf32-xstormy16.c (xstormy16_elf_howto): Add R_XSTORMY16_LO16
 > > 	and R_XSTORMY16_HI16) howto entries.
 > > 	(xstormy16_reloc_map): Map R_XSTORMY16_{LO,HI}16 to BFD_RELOC_{LO,HI}16.
 > > 	(xstormy16_info_to_howto_rela): Use R_XSTORMY16_GNU_VTINHERIT to 
 > > 	determine the start of the second reloc table.
 > > 
 > > cgen/ChangeLog
 > > 	* cpu/xstormy16.cpu (imm16): Call handler immediate16.
 > > 	* cpu/xstormy16.opc (parse_small_immediate): Return on '@'.
 > > 	(parse_immediate16): Handle immediate16 values, which now include
 > > 	@hi(label) and @lo(label)
 > > 
 > > gas/ChangeLog
 > > 	* config/tc-xstormy16.c (md_cgen_lookup_reloc): If a relocation 
 > > 	has already been set up, use it.
 > > 
 > > include/ChangeLog
 > > 	* elf/xstormy16.h (START_RELOC_NUMBERS) Add relocation numbers
 > > 	for R_XSTORMY16_LO16 and R_XSTORMY16_HI16.
 > > 
 > > opcodes/ChangeLog
 > > 	* opcodes/xstormy16-asm.c: Regenerate.

Having to get cgen approval for cpu-specific changes sucks.
People should be able to police their own ports.
gcc port maintainers don't have to get approval for changes to their
ports.  I don't understand why this would be any different.

Is there a reason for this (anal-retentive) procedure?
[I'm not suggesting you or anyone else is actually imposing this of course.
Maybe people just think that's the way things are.]

But, if approval is required, methinks binutils is a better place to
provide approval for .opc changes (e.g. complaints about warnings :-).