Re: Fix rs6000 compatibility predicate

[Jim Blandy <jimb at redhat dot com>]

So, is this patch rejected or accepted?  If it is rejected, what
changes should I make before resubmitting it?

Jim Blandy <jimb@redhat.com> writes:

> The code for bfd/cpu-rs6000.c:rs6000_compatible looks wrong to me.
> The logic there says that A, which we assert to be a bfd_arch_rs6000,
> is only compatible with a B whose arch is bfd_arch_powerpc and whose
> mach is bfd_mach_rs6k.  But that's an rs6000 mach, not a powerpc mach;
> there should never be a bfd_arch_powerpc / bfd_mach_rs6k arch info.
> Is that right?
> 
> The code as changed by the patch below would make more sense to me:
> all powerpc machines are supersets of the base rs6000 machine, but
> there the two lines diverged, so any later model of the rs6000 is
> incompatible with any later powerpc model.
> 
> 2003-10-21  Jim Blandy  <jimb@redhat.com>
> 
> 	* cpu-rs6000.c (rs6000_compatible): Check the correct arch_info
> 	object's mach field: all PowerPC machines are supersets of the
> 	original rs6000, but not later rs6000 machines.
> 
> Index: bfd/cpu-rs6000.c
> ===================================================================
> RCS file: /cvs/src/src/bfd/cpu-rs6000.c,v
> retrieving revision 1.5
> diff -c -r1.5 cpu-rs6000.c
> *** bfd/cpu-rs6000.c	30 Nov 2002 08:39:36 -0000	1.5
> --- bfd/cpu-rs6000.c	21 Oct 2003 17:31:40 -0000
> ***************
> *** 47,53 ****
>       case bfd_arch_rs6000:
>         return bfd_default_compatible (a, b);
>       case bfd_arch_powerpc:
> !       if (b->mach == bfd_mach_rs6k)
>   	return b;
>         return NULL;
>       }
> --- 47,53 ----
>       case bfd_arch_rs6000:
>         return bfd_default_compatible (a, b);
>       case bfd_arch_powerpc:
> !       if (a->mach == bfd_mach_rs6k)
>   	return b;
>         return NULL;
>       }