This is the mail archive of the
binutils@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the binutils project.
Re: [PATCH/RFA] Mark arm-*-netbsdelf* binaries as ELFOSABI_NETBSD
- From: Richard Earnshaw <rearnsha at arm dot com>
- To: Philip Blundell <pb at nexus dot co dot uk>
- Cc: Richard dot Earnshaw at arm dot com, thorpej at wasabisystems dot com, binutils at sources dot redhat dot com
- Date: Mon, 08 Apr 2002 11:41:31 +0100
- Subject: Re: [PATCH/RFA] Mark arm-*-netbsdelf* binaries as ELFOSABI_NETBSD
- Organization: ARM Ltd.
- Reply-to: Richard dot Earnshaw at arm dot com
> On Mon, 2002-04-08 at 11:11, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
> > For a fully conforming ARM EABI implementation, this information will be
> > determined by looking at EF_ARM_EABI_VERSION (the top 8 bits of the
> > EF_FLAGS field). So there's no need to mandate the setting of the
> > ELFOSABI field.
>
> But the EI_OSABI field is what you look at in the first instance to
> decide whether what you're dealing with is a fully-conforming ARM EABI
> implementation. If it is set to some strange value, you can't ascribe
> any meaning at all to EF_FLAGS.
I can't find anything in the ELF spec that says that the E_FLAGS must be
interpreted in the light of EI_OSABI field, rather than the reverse.
I'll discuss this with Lee.
>
> > BTW, who allocated ELFOSABI_ARM? I'm fairly certain it wouldn't have been
> > ARM,
>
> It certainly wasn't ARM, and I don't think ELFOSABI_ARM was ever
> codified by SCO either. I don't remember who exactly made the choice of
> 97 as a value -- it might have been Nick, Uli, Pat, Scott or possibly
> even me -- but at any rate it was just a GNU thing.
Grr... ;-)
R.