Re: [obish] More osabi comments

[Andrew Cagney <ac131313 at redhat dot com>]

> The bfd_mach_foo things refer to ISAs, not chips.  So the
> 'can_run_code_for' is talking about whether one ISA is an
> upwards-compatible extension of another, not a question of which ISAs
> a chip may implement.  Is the ISA / chip distinction the one the
> comment is trying to make?

This is how it now reads:

      /* NOTE: cagney/2003-10-23: The code for "a can_run_code_for b"
         is implemented using BFD's compatible method (a->compatible
         (b) == a -- the lowest common denominator between a and b is
         a).  That method's definition of compatible may not be as you
         expect.  For instance the test "amd64 can run code for i386"
         (or more generally "64-bit ISA can run code for the 32-bit
         ISA").  BFD doesn't normally consider 32-bit and 64-bit
         "compatible" so it doesn't succeed.  */

enjoy,
Andrew