[PATCH] binutils-2.20: remove unneeded/unwanted patches

[PATCH] binutils-2.20: remove unneeded/unwanted patches

[Bernhard Reutner-Fischer]

Hi khem,

In 33630af91d1027a91b43f697c86e809a770668e1 you (AFAICS) added
binutils-2.20 support, yet the hunks mentioned below were already
applied or are unneeded in that release?! How did you patch/compile
this, perhaps i'm missing some crucial part in the setup?
Thanks for clarification/fixing this up,
Bernhard

Already applied to 2.20 or unnecessary nowadays

Signed-off-by: Bernhard Reutner-Fischer <rep.dot.nop@gmail.com>
---
 ...tils-2.16.91.0.6-objcopy-rename-errorcode.patch |   39 --------------------
 .../binutils-2.20/binutils-arm-pr7093.patch        |   19 ----------
 .../binutils/binutils-2.20/uclibc-segfault.patch   |   23 ------------
 3 files changed, 0 insertions(+), 81 deletions(-)
 delete mode 100644 recipes/binutils/binutils-2.20/binutils-2.16.91.0.6-objcopy-rename-errorcode.patch
 delete mode 100644 recipes/binutils/binutils-2.20/binutils-arm-pr7093.patch
 delete mode 100644 recipes/binutils/binutils-2.20/uclibc-segfault.patch

diff --git a/recipes/binutils/binutils-2.20/binutils-2.16.91.0.6-objcopy-rename-errorcode.patch b/recipes/binutils/binutils-2.20/binutils-2.16.91.0.6-objcopy-rename-errorcode.patch
deleted file mode 100644
index 8df5b1f..0000000
--- a/recipes/binutils/binutils-2.20/binutils-2.16.91.0.6-objcopy-rename-errorcode.patch
+++ /dev/null
@@ -1,39 +0,0 @@
-# strip (and objcopy) fail to set the error code if there is no
-# output file name and the rename of the stripped (or copied) file
-# fails, yet the command fails to do anything.  This fixes both
-# objcopy and strip.
-#
-# modification by bero: Ported to 2.16.91.0.6
-#
-#Signed-off-by: John Bowler <jbowler@acm.org>
-#Signed-off-by: Bernhard Rosenkraenzer <bero@arklinux.org>
----
-# binutils/objcopy.c |    8 +++++---
-# 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
-#
-Index: src/binutils/objcopy.c
-===================================================================
---- src.orig/binutils/objcopy.c	2007-08-09 13:26:03.000000000 +0100
-+++ src/binutils/objcopy.c	2007-08-09 16:36:12.000000000 +0100
-@@ -2787,8 +2787,9 @@ strip_main (int argc, char *argv[])
- 	  if (preserve_dates)
- 	    set_times (tmpname, &statbuf);
- 	  if (output_file != tmpname)
--	    smart_rename (tmpname, output_file ? output_file : argv[i],
--			  preserve_dates);
-+	    if (smart_rename (tmpname, output_file ? output_file : argv[i],
-+			  preserve_dates))
-+	      hold_status = 1;
- 	  status = hold_status;
- 	}
-       else
-@@ -3411,7 +3412,8 @@ copy_main (int argc, char *argv[])
-       if (preserve_dates)
- 	set_times (tmpname, &statbuf);
-       if (tmpname != output_filename)
--	smart_rename (tmpname, input_filename, preserve_dates);
-+	if (smart_rename (tmpname, input_filename, preserve_dates))
-+	  status = 1;
-     }
-   else
-     unlink_if_ordinary (tmpname);
diff --git a/recipes/binutils/binutils-2.20/binutils-arm-pr7093.patch b/recipes/binutils/binutils-2.20/binutils-arm-pr7093.patch
deleted file mode 100644
index ad4a556..0000000
--- a/recipes/binutils/binutils-2.20/binutils-arm-pr7093.patch
+++ /dev/null
@@ -1,19 +0,0 @@
-Index: binutils/bfd/elf32-arm.c
-===================================================================
-RCS file: /cvs/src/src/bfd/elf32-arm.c,v
-retrieving revision 1.162
-retrieving revision 1.163
-diff -u -r1.162 -r1.163
---- binutils/bfd/elf32-arm.c	23 Dec 2008 09:01:45 -0000	1.162
-+++ binutils/bfd/elf32-arm.c	23 Dec 2008 11:46:17 -0000	1.163
-@@ -4608,6 +4608,10 @@
-   Elf_Internal_Shdr *hdr;
-   unsigned int i, localsyms;
- 
-+  /* PR 7093: Make sure that we are dealing with an arm elf binary.  */
-+  if (! is_arm_elf (abfd))
-+    return;
-+
-   if ((abfd->flags & DYNAMIC) != 0)
-     return;
- 
diff --git a/recipes/binutils/binutils-2.20/uclibc-segfault.patch b/recipes/binutils/binutils-2.20/uclibc-segfault.patch
deleted file mode 100644
index 16a875f..0000000
--- a/recipes/binutils/binutils-2.20/uclibc-segfault.patch
+++ /dev/null
@@ -1,23 +0,0 @@
-upstream: already committed
-
---- clean/binutils-2.19.51/bfd/elf32-arm.c	2009-05-22 12:58:44.000000000 +0100
-+++ binutils-2.19.51/bfd/elf32-arm.c	2009-06-08 21:29:49.000000000 +0100
-@@ -8960,7 +8964,7 @@ elf32_arm_fix_exidx_coverage (asection *
- 	  struct bfd_elf_section_data *elf_sec = elf_section_data (sec);
- 	  Elf_Internal_Shdr *hdr = &elf_sec->this_hdr;
- 	  
--	  if (hdr->sh_type != SHT_ARM_EXIDX)
-+	  if (!hdr || hdr->sh_type != SHT_ARM_EXIDX)
- 	    continue;
- 	  
- 	  if (elf_sec->linked_to)
---- clean/binutils-2.19.51/ld/emultempl/armelf.em	2009-05-22 12:58:45.000000000 +0100
-+++ binutils-2.19.51/ld/emultempl/armelf.em	2009-06-08 21:26:34.000000000 +0100
-@@ -309,6 +309,7 @@ gld${EMULATION_NAME}_finish (void)
- 	      asection *out_sec = sec->output_section;
- 
- 	      if (out_sec
-+		  && elf_section_data (sec)
- 		  && elf_section_type (sec) == SHT_PROGBITS
- 		  && (elf_section_flags (sec) & SHF_EXECINSTR) != 0
- 		  && (sec->flags & SEC_EXCLUDE) == 0
-- 
1.6.5.2

Re: [PATCH] binutils-2.20: remove unneeded/unwanted patches

[Khem Raj]

On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 1:24 PM, Bernhard Reutner-Fischer
<rep.dot.nop@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi khem,
>
> In 33630af91d1027a91b43f697c86e809a770668e1 you (AFAICS) added
> binutils-2.20 support, yet the hunks mentioned below were already
> applied or are unneeded in that release?! How did you patch/compile
> this, perhaps i'm missing some crucial part in the setup?
> Thanks for clarification/fixing this up,

out of these three only patch which is applied right now is
binutils-arm-pr7093.patch and by nature of the patch it adds a check
and returns if true. Now that the patch it applied twice the check is done twice
making one redundant but not incorrect. Just existence of patch does not apply
them automatically you have to add the patches to SRC_URI in order to include
them.

I will remove these patches from repo as they are not applied.

Thanks for it

-Khem

> Bernhard
>
> Already applied to 2.20 or unnecessary nowadays
>
> Signed-off-by: Bernhard Reutner-Fischer <rep.dot.nop@gmail.com>
> ---
>  ...tils-2.16.91.0.6-objcopy-rename-errorcode.patch |   39 --------------------
>  .../binutils-2.20/binutils-arm-pr7093.patch        |   19 ----------
>  .../binutils/binutils-2.20/uclibc-segfault.patch   |   23 ------------
>  3 files changed, 0 insertions(+), 81 deletions(-)
>  delete mode 100644 recipes/binutils/binutils-2.20/binutils-2.16.91.0.6-objcopy-rename-errorcode.patch
>  delete mode 100644 recipes/binutils/binutils-2.20/binutils-arm-pr7093.patch
>  delete mode 100644 recipes/binutils/binutils-2.20/uclibc-segfault.patch
>
> diff --git a/recipes/binutils/binutils-2.20/binutils-2.16.91.0.6-objcopy-rename-errorcode.patch b/recipes/binutils/binutils-2.20/binutils-2.16.91.0.6-objcopy-rename-errorcode.patch
> deleted file mode 100644
> index 8df5b1f..0000000
> --- a/recipes/binutils/binutils-2.20/binutils-2.16.91.0.6-objcopy-rename-errorcode.patch
> +++ /dev/null
> @@ -1,39 +0,0 @@
> -# strip (and objcopy) fail to set the error code if there is no
> -# output file name and the rename of the stripped (or copied) file
> -# fails, yet the command fails to do anything.  This fixes both
> -# objcopy and strip.
> -#
> -# modification by bero: Ported to 2.16.91.0.6
> -#
> -#Signed-off-by: John Bowler <jbowler@acm.org>
> -#Signed-off-by: Bernhard Rosenkraenzer <bero@arklinux.org>
> ----
> -# binutils/objcopy.c |    8 +++++---
> -# 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> -#
> -Index: src/binutils/objcopy.c
> -===================================================================
> ---- src.orig/binutils/objcopy.c        2007-08-09 13:26:03.000000000 +0100
> -+++ src/binutils/objcopy.c     2007-08-09 16:36:12.000000000 +0100
> -@@ -2787,8 +2787,9 @@ strip_main (int argc, char *argv[])
> -         if (preserve_dates)
> -           set_times (tmpname, &statbuf);
> -         if (output_file != tmpname)
> --          smart_rename (tmpname, output_file ? output_file : argv[i],
> --                        preserve_dates);
> -+          if (smart_rename (tmpname, output_file ? output_file : argv[i],
> -+                        preserve_dates))
> -+            hold_status = 1;
> -         status = hold_status;
> -       }
> -       else
> -@@ -3411,7 +3412,8 @@ copy_main (int argc, char *argv[])
> -       if (preserve_dates)
> -       set_times (tmpname, &statbuf);
> -       if (tmpname != output_filename)
> --      smart_rename (tmpname, input_filename, preserve_dates);
> -+      if (smart_rename (tmpname, input_filename, preserve_dates))
> -+        status = 1;
> -     }
> -   else
> -     unlink_if_ordinary (tmpname);
> diff --git a/recipes/binutils/binutils-2.20/binutils-arm-pr7093.patch b/recipes/binutils/binutils-2.20/binutils-arm-pr7093.patch
> deleted file mode 100644
> index ad4a556..0000000
> --- a/recipes/binutils/binutils-2.20/binutils-arm-pr7093.patch
> +++ /dev/null
> @@ -1,19 +0,0 @@
> -Index: binutils/bfd/elf32-arm.c
> -===================================================================
> -RCS file: /cvs/src/src/bfd/elf32-arm.c,v
> -retrieving revision 1.162
> -retrieving revision 1.163
> -diff -u -r1.162 -r1.163
> ---- binutils/bfd/elf32-arm.c   23 Dec 2008 09:01:45 -0000      1.162
> -+++ binutils/bfd/elf32-arm.c   23 Dec 2008 11:46:17 -0000      1.163
> -@@ -4608,6 +4608,10 @@
> -   Elf_Internal_Shdr *hdr;
> -   unsigned int i, localsyms;
> -
> -+  /* PR 7093: Make sure that we are dealing with an arm elf binary.  */
> -+  if (! is_arm_elf (abfd))
> -+    return;
> -+
> -   if ((abfd->flags & DYNAMIC) != 0)
> -     return;
> -
> diff --git a/recipes/binutils/binutils-2.20/uclibc-segfault.patch b/recipes/binutils/binutils-2.20/uclibc-segfault.patch
> deleted file mode 100644
> index 16a875f..0000000
> --- a/recipes/binutils/binutils-2.20/uclibc-segfault.patch
> +++ /dev/null
> @@ -1,23 +0,0 @@
> -upstream: already committed
> -
> ---- clean/binutils-2.19.51/bfd/elf32-arm.c     2009-05-22 12:58:44.000000000 +0100
> -+++ binutils-2.19.51/bfd/elf32-arm.c   2009-06-08 21:29:49.000000000 +0100
> -@@ -8960,7 +8964,7 @@ elf32_arm_fix_exidx_coverage (asection *
> -         struct bfd_elf_section_data *elf_sec = elf_section_data (sec);
> -         Elf_Internal_Shdr *hdr = &elf_sec->this_hdr;
> -
> --        if (hdr->sh_type != SHT_ARM_EXIDX)
> -+        if (!hdr || hdr->sh_type != SHT_ARM_EXIDX)
> -           continue;
> -
> -         if (elf_sec->linked_to)
> ---- clean/binutils-2.19.51/ld/emultempl/armelf.em      2009-05-22 12:58:45.000000000 +0100
> -+++ binutils-2.19.51/ld/emultempl/armelf.em    2009-06-08 21:26:34.000000000 +0100
> -@@ -309,6 +309,7 @@ gld${EMULATION_NAME}_finish (void)
> -             asection *out_sec = sec->output_section;
> -
> -             if (out_sec
> -+                && elf_section_data (sec)
> -                 && elf_section_type (sec) == SHT_PROGBITS
> -                 && (elf_section_flags (sec) & SHF_EXECINSTR) != 0
> -                 && (sec->flags & SEC_EXCLUDE) == 0
> --
> 1.6.5.2
>
>

Re: [PATCH] binutils-2.20: remove unneeded/unwanted patches

[Bernhard Reutner-Fischer]

On Wed, Dec 09, 2009 at 08:39:20PM -0800, Khem Raj wrote:
>On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 1:24 PM, Bernhard Reutner-Fischer
><rep.dot.nop@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Hi khem,
>>
>> In 33630af91d1027a91b43f697c86e809a770668e1 you (AFAICS) added
>> binutils-2.20 support, yet the hunks mentioned below were already
>> applied or are unneeded in that release?! How did you patch/compile
>> this, perhaps i'm missing some crucial part in the setup?
>> Thanks for clarification/fixing this up,
>
>out of these three only patch which is applied right now is
>binutils-arm-pr7093.patch and by nature of the patch it adds a check
>and returns if true. Now that the patch it applied twice the check is done twice
>making one redundant but not incorrect. Just existence of patch does not apply
>them automatically you have to add the patches to SRC_URI in order to include
>them.

I'm aware of this, yes. But the fact that you pulled them into the 2.20
patchdir suggested that they were somehow still of interrest for that
version, although not applied.
>
>I will remove these patches from repo as they are not applied.

Thanks alot for removing them, they're just taking up space and
bandwidth.

cheers,