Re: [avr-gcc-list] patches for binutils 2.20

[Joerg Wunsch]

In article <address@hidden> 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. ;-)