Re: PATCH (take 2) - QNX bfd cleanup

["Kris Warkentin" <kewarken at qnx dot com>]

Graeme will answer in more detail but the plan isn't to remove QNX binutils
support but only to remove those parts which would require us to define a
QNX specific ABI.  A new ABI is not the solution to the problem that we're
having so we need to find a better way.  Believe me, getting QNX support
into the GNU source tree is a high priority for us here but we want to do it
right.

cheers,

Kris

----- Original Message -----
From: "Alan Modra" <amodra@bigpond.net.au>
To: "Graeme Peterson" <gp@qnx.com>
Cc: <binutils@sources.redhat.com>
Sent: Friday, November 01, 2002 5:27 AM
Subject: Re: PATCH (take 2) - QNX bfd cleanup


> Hi Graeme,
>   Sorry for the delay in replying.  A close lightning strike here
> took out my cable modem and ethernet.  :-(
>
> On Thu, Oct 31, 2002 at 05:05:17PM -0500, Graeme Peterson wrote:
> [about removing QNX support from binutils]
>
> Can you tell me why your management people decided that QNX support
> ought to be removed from binutils?  Is it just simply that you
> don't have time for support?  It seems like some people outside
> your organization would like to keep QNX support in binutils, so
> perhaps there's reason to leave it in.  We can solve the ambiguous
> bfd vector easily by removing the QNX vectors from the target list
> or use something like Kaz's patch.
>
> --
> Alan Modra
> IBM OzLabs - Linux Technology Centre
>