On Sunday 08 November 2009 19:12:57 Rob Landley wrote: > #define EM_XTENSA 94 /* Tensilica Xtensa Architecture */ > #define EM_IP2K 101 /* Ubicom IP2022 micro controller > #define EM_CR 103 /* National Semiconductor > 3define EM_MSP430 105 /* TI msp430 micro controller */ > #define EM_BLACKFIN 106 /* Analog Devices Blackfin */ > #define EM_ALTERA_NIOS2 113 /* Altera Nios II soft-core processor */ > #define EM_CRX 114 /* National Semiconductor CRX */ > #define EM_NUM 95 > > Isn't EM_NUM supposed to be one higher than the largest number used?
yes, but i dont think anyone actually uses this thing. might be easier to just punt it. if we do fix it, we should important the holes from binutils. -mike
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ uClibc mailing list [email protected] http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/uclibc
