Andrew Zabolotny z...@homelink.ru wrote:
While I was waiting for the papers (they told me it was sent with
snail mail, so that's a few months to wait),
Well, when I signed mine, I think it took me about a month in total to
do it. Funny enough, the original reason was the addition of the
From Sun, 21 Feb 2010 06:48:57 -0700
Weddington, Eric eric.wedding...@atmel.com wrote:
Thanks for providing this. Do you have a copyright assignment on file
with the FSF? That way we can commit your patch into binutils.
No :-(
What do I do?
--
Andrew
signature.asc
Description: PGP
Andrew Zabolotny z...@homelink.ru wrote:
Thanks for providing this. Do you have a copyright assignment on file
with the FSF? That way we can commit your patch into binutils.
No :-(
What do I do?
I think your contribution could still qualify as a medium to small
change (given the number of
-Original Message-
From:
avr-gcc-list-bounces+eric.weddington=atmel@nongnu.org
[mailto:avr-gcc-list-bounces+eric.weddington=atmel@nongnu.
org] On Behalf Of Joerg Wunsch
Sent: Tuesday, February 23, 2010 12:49 AM
To: avr-gcc-list@nongnu.org
Subject: Re: [avr-gcc-list] 8
As Weddington, Eric wrote:
Note that FSF's standard for a small change is 10 lines or less that
are changed. Or typically something that is obvious. Andrew's patch
seems to be a bit more than 10 lines, and is not necessarily an
obvious change. However, it is not that big of a patch either. I
-Original Message-
From: Andrew Zabolotny [mailto:z...@homelink.ru]
Sent: Friday, February 19, 2010 2:34 AM
To: Weddington, Eric
Cc: avr-gcc-list@nongnu.org
Subject: Re: [avr-gcc-list] 8-bit relocations on AVR
From Tue, 16 Feb 2010 20:28:16 -0700
Weddington, Eric eric.wedding
From Tue, 16 Feb 2010 20:28:16 -0700
Weddington, Eric eric.wedding...@atmel.com wrote:
Could you also fill out a bug report on the binutils project? And
please attach a test case showing the issue that you're trying to
solve. It helps for completeness to have everything in one place: bug
From Sun, 14 Feb 2010 03:47:52 -0700
Weddington, Eric eric.wedding...@atmel.com wrote:
I can try to make a binutils patch, but I'm not even sure whom I
need to contact to push the patch upstream.
Me.
Okay, it turned out to be pretty easy.
Attached is a patch that implements the new
From Tue, 16 Feb 2010 22:28:47 +0300
Andrew Zabolotny z...@homelink.ru wrote:
Attached is a patch
Ooops, it seems I moved the patch to a different directory before I've
sent the message...
Here goes take two.
--
Andrew
diff -ur binutils-2.18.orig/bfd/elf32-avr.c binutils-2.18/bfd/elf32-avr.c
-Original Message-
From: Andrew Zabolotny [mailto:z...@homelink.ru]
Sent: Wednesday, February 17, 2010 2:39 AM
To: Weddington, Eric
Cc: avr-gcc-list@nongnu.org
Subject: Re: [avr-gcc-list] 8-bit relocations on AVR
From Tue, 16 Feb 2010 22:28:47 +0300
Andrew Zabolotny z
From Mon, 15 Feb 2010 08:27:25 +0100 (MET)
j...@uriah.heep.sax.de (Joerg Wunsch) wrote:
Btw., to prove this is really a deficiency, it might suffice to
demonstrate that the very same GNU assembler can handle this situation
for other architectures pretty well:
Well, I wouldn't call this a bug,
From Sun, 14 Feb 2010 11:12:03 +1100
Erik Christiansen dva...@internode.on.net wrote:
If you have no objection to each message having global labels, it is
not only achievable (via the ldi or ldd relocations), but the need to
store the string length is avoided:
.section .text
; In
-Original Message-
From:
avr-gcc-list-bounces+eric.weddington=atmel@nongnu.org
[mailto:avr-gcc-list-bounces+eric.weddington=atmel@nongnu.
org] On Behalf Of Andrew Zabolotny
Sent: Sunday, February 14, 2010 3:43 PM
To: avr-gcc-list@nongnu.org
Subject: Re: [avr-gcc-list
On Sun, Feb 14, 2010 at 03:47:52AM -0700, Weddington, Eric wrote:
It depends on if this patch fixes a known bug, or if this is specific
to your Forth implementation.
AIUI, Andrew's observed failure of avr-as to handle:
.byte 2f-1f
1: .ascii somestring
2:
is a well known bug, even if not
Erik Christiansen dva...@internode.on.net wrote:
[...] is a well known bug, even if not recorded.
It might make Eric's work easier to at least file a bug report for it.
Btw., to prove this is really a deficiency, it might suffice to
demonstrate that the very same GNU assembler can handle this
On Sat, Feb 13, 2010 at 08:35:44PM +0300, Andrew Zabolotny wrote:
.byte 2f-1f
1:.ascii somestring
2:
This has been a source of occasional irritation for more than half a
decade now. Klaus Rudolph fixed a couple of cases in a patch, back in
2004, but this one remains.
I understand
16 matches
Mail list logo
