This is the mail archive of the binutils@sources.redhat.com mailing list for the binutils project.

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format:	[Raw text]

Re: Target-specific FDE pointer sizes (2/3)

From: Richard Sandiford <rsandifo at redhat dot com>
To: Nick Clifton <nickc at redhat dot com>
Cc: binutils at sources dot redhat dot com
Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2005 20:41:57 +0000
Subject: Re: Target-specific FDE pointer sizes (2/3)
References: <874qh038y1.fsf@redhat.com> <87zmys1szw.fsf@redhat.com><41FE15A5.8080308@redhat.com><wvn8y69q17c.fsf@talisman.cambridge.redhat.com><41FE1D13.3040104@redhat.com><wvn1xc1pzgm.fsf@talisman.cambridge.redhat.com><41FE5C53.9060805@redhat.com>

Nick Clifton <nickc@redhat.com> writes:
> I see.  In which case I will agree that the warning message would be wrong.

Thanks, and sorry for all the hullabaloo.  I did a poor job of
explaining the situation.

Both patches now applied.

Richard

References:
- Target-specific FDE pointer sizes (1/3)
  - From: Richard Sandiford
- Target-specific FDE pointer sizes (2/3)
  - From: Richard Sandiford
- Re: Target-specific FDE pointer sizes (2/3)
  - From: Nick Clifton
- Re: Target-specific FDE pointer sizes (2/3)
  - From: Richard Sandiford
- Re: Target-specific FDE pointer sizes (2/3)
  - From: Nick Clifton
- Re: Target-specific FDE pointer sizes (2/3)
  - From: Richard Sandiford
- Re: Target-specific FDE pointer sizes (2/3)
  - From: Nick Clifton

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]