In article <258ddd1f44b6ed4aafd4370847cf58d509eb1...@csomb01.corp.atmel.com> you write:
>> There were a couple of patches that didn't apply cleanly. I see >> they were generated against 2.19, which may account for it. >Did they not apply at all? Or did they apply, but with a fuzz? Which >patches? 34-binutils-2.20-as-dwarf.patch tries to apply a hunk to gas/config/tc-avr.c which has already been applied; the other hunk (addition of an #include) is probably not necessary anymore. The second diff in that file patches gas/config/tc-avr.h, and Emacs complains "hunk seriously messed up" becaus it's got a single space on a line itself right after the patch. Some patches also have offsets of fuzz, but that's probably minor. Also, I think there should be one line-ending style across all patches; 34-binutils-2.20-as-dwarf.patch and 35-binutils-2.20-dwarf2-AVRStudio-workaround.patch have DOS-style line endings, while all other files have Unix-style line endings. -- cheers, J"org .-.-. --... ...-- -.. . DL8DTL http://www.sax.de/~joerg/ NIC: JW11-RIPE Never trust an operating system you don't have sources for. ;-) _______________________________________________ AVR-GCC-list mailing list AVR-GCC-list@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/avr-gcc-list
