This is the mail archive of the
binutils@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the binutils project.
Re: QNX binutils targets
- From: "Graeme Peterson" <gp at qnx dot com>
- To: hp at bitrange dot com (Hans-Peter Nilsson)
- Cc: hjl at lucon dot org (H. J. Lu), segher at koffie dot nl (Segher Boessenkool), binutils at sources dot redhat dot com
- Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2002 14:14:54 -0400 (EDT)
- Subject: Re: QNX binutils targets
Hey.
If possible:
1) I want to maintain backward compatibility with our
exisiting tools and the binaries the produced.
2) I want to see that other people do not get the QNX
specific behavior when they build --enable-targets=all.
So to achieve point 1 I think I need to use the old naming
conventions, where I basically just extend the default bfd,
but leave the TARGET_LITTLE_NAME alone.
To achive point 2, I think I could start emitting an empty
section, say .<CPU>.GNU.abi.qnx, and look for it in the qnx
specific backend functions, returning without executing the
qnx code if it is not found.
If someone configures for some combination that includes both
a qnx target bfd and the one it is based on, they would have a
small increase in runtime which checks for the section, and
behaves accordingly.
Does this seem reasonable? Is my understanding of the various
proposals here correct? The ELFOSABI_QNX seems ok, except that
I don't want to break backward compatibility if I can, and if
I have understood the various mails, it would do just that.
The only drawback I see is for QNX, which is that the extensions
would only work on binaries generated with the new tools. This
is ok.
Thanks as always, and I am quite willing to be corrected if I
am wrong in any of the above.
Cheers.
GP
>
> On Fri, 25 Oct 2002, Graeme Peterson wrote:
>
> > Hi, all.
> >
> > I am in the process of adding the ELFOSABI_QNX. I have some questions and
> > concerns.
> >
> > - How will changing the OSABI and bfd names affect our existing tools
> > (gcc, gdb, etc...) that use the generic ones?
>
> I think there will be breakage, perhaps total incompatibility.
> Consider instead creating a special-named section, as proposed
> in <URL:http://sources.redhat.com/ml/binutils/2002-10/msg00454.html>.
>
> > - My current approach is to add the define in include/elf/common.h:
> > #define ELFOSABI_QNX 13 /* QNX Neutrino */
>
> If you follow the binutils list, you should know that H.J.:s
> proposal to change ELFOSABI for this purpose is doubtful.
>
> See for example
> <URL:http://sources.redhat.com/ml/binutils/2002-10/msg00434.html>,
> links and follow-ups in/to that message.
>
> brgds, H-P
>
>