Re: fastcall

[Christopher Faylor <cgf at redhat dot com>]

On Mon, Apr 08, 2002 at 11:28:20AM +1000, Danny Smith wrote:
> --- Christopher Faylor <cgf@redhat.com> wrote: > On Mon, Apr 08, 2002 at
>08:29:29AM +1000, Danny Smith wrote:
>> >maintainer.  There are currently  bugs in binutils with respect to ld
>> >--shared (or at least there was two weeks ago and has been since 17
>> [UTC]
>> >December).  
>> 
>> URL?  I don't see anything obvious in the subject.
>http://sources.redhat.com/ml/binutils/2002-01/msg00477.html
>http://sources.redhat.com/ml/binutils/2002-02/msg00624.html

Oh yes, that one.  Oh well.

>> >Chris asked the question a while ago: "Wanna be a binutils maintainer".
>> 
>> Yeah.  I asked for binutils maintainer and binutils and gcc cygwin
>> package maintainers.  gcc 3.1 presents a challenge in that some of my
>> local hacks will no longer work.  I have an idea about how to kludge
>> around that fact without impacting the rest of gcc but I don't really
>> have much time for much programming anymore.
>> 
>> However, I'll ask nickc if he minds if I start trying to clear out some
>> of the binutils issues.
>> 
>> Danny, do you mind checking things in, if I get approval? 
>
>Does write access to winsup also give me write[-after-approval] access to
>binutils?

I don't know the binutils policy, actually.  I think it probably does.

You do have the capability of checking something in but not necessarily
the permission to do so.

>If so, I am happy checking in windres patches.   The checksum
>patch is a bit more intrusive into BFD-land and needs review. 

I asked DJ to reevaluate that one a week or so ago.  Have you tried it?
If it just modifies pe-specific code, I'd say we should ping the author to
see if he has any further tweaks (this patch has a two or three month
history) and, if not, check it in.

Anyway, I've asked for a ruling on this from Nick Clifton.  It's a
little odd to do this since Nick works for me now but hey, that's the
free software world for ya.

cgf