This is the mail archive of the
binutils@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the binutils project.
Re: Change ELFOSABI in SH (Re: [Patch] sh64: Fix gas testsuiteexpected output)
- From: Hans-Peter Nilsson <hp at bitrange dot com>
- To: kaz Kojima <kkojima at rr dot iij4u dot or dot jp>
- Cc: hjl at lucon dot org, <binutils at sources dot redhat dot com>
- Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2002 19:43:54 -0400 (EDT)
- Subject: Re: Change ELFOSABI in SH (Re: [Patch] sh64: Fix gas testsuiteexpected output)
On Wed, 23 Oct 2002, kaz Kojima wrote:
> "H. J. Lu" <hjl@lucon.org> wrote:
> >> So I guess that the ambiguity for existing objects can be handled by
> >> adding something to bfd_check_format_matches which selects an appropriate
> >> representative vector from the ambiguity set if possible, as it was
> >> already done when the default vector is included in this set.
> >> Thoughts?
>From my now-outside perspective, I think it'd be better to have
the port see a difference (which there currently is none for
*unlinked objects*), such as with my special-empty-section
proposal. (It'd also be much less of a hassle than IMHO
wrongfully changing ELFOSABI.)
> > Someone from SH should read
> >
> > http://sources.redhat.com/ml/binutils/2002-10/msg00437.html
> >
> > The old one is very unreasonable. Do it now before it is too late. I
> > can supply patches if necessary.
FWIW, I disagree with H.J. about the gravity and the solution.
> I'm not a one from SH :-)
Me neither. :-) I think Joern is the right person to ask for
that.
> Anyway, my argument about bfd_check_format_matches is for
> "existing objects".
Um, only for objects that aren't matched by the default target
vector, right?
For executables, make elf_object_p look at .note.ABI-tag. (They
don't have the same contents on NetBSD, no?) Create one (or
something equivalent) for DSO:s too; it seems like that doesn't
happen.
brgds, H-P