Re: config/ sync with binutils vs. removing gcc targets.

2016-12-07 Thread Bernd Schmidt
On 12/06/2016 11:40 PM, Alan Modra wrote: I understand that config/ in the gcc repository is the master source for binutils-gdb config/. If that's the case then people removing gcc support for particular targets need to be careful about their config/ edits. If a target is still supported in

Re: config/ sync with binutils vs. removing gcc targets.

2016-12-07 Thread Alan Modra
On Wed, Dec 07, 2016 at 08:46:32PM +0900, Oleg Endo wrote: > Hi, > > Yeah, my SH5/SH64 removal procedures might have been a little too > radical, sorry about that. However ... > > On Wed, 2016-12-07 at 09:10 +1030, Alan Modra wrote: > > I understand that config/ in the gcc repository is the

Re: config/ sync with binutils vs. removing gcc targets.

2016-12-07 Thread Oleg Endo
Hi, Yeah, my SH5/SH64 removal procedures might have been a little too radical, sorry about that.  However ... On Wed, 2016-12-07 at 09:10 +1030, Alan Modra wrote: > I understand that config/ in the gcc repository is the master source > for binutils-gdb config/.  If that's the case then people

config/ sync with binutils vs. removing gcc targets.

2016-12-06 Thread Alan Modra
I understand that config/ in the gcc repository is the master source for binutils-gdb config/. If that's the case then people removing gcc support for particular targets need to be careful about their config/ edits. If a target is still supported in binutils, then please don't rip out config/