This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the binutils project.
Re: bfd questions.
- From: Nick Clifton <nickc at cambridge dot redhat dot com>
- To: "Martin Schwidefsky" <schwidefsky at de dot ibm dot com>
- Cc: binutils at sources dot redhat dot com
- Date: 08 Feb 2002 11:20:57 +0000
- Subject: Re: bfd questions.
- References: <OFD0A3CE20.007CAD17-ONC1256B58.00521FC5@de.ibm.com>
> For the bi-arch s390/s390x support I'd like to change the two s390
> bfds in some aspects. 1) The printable_name for 31 bit is "s390:390"
> and for 64 bit it is "s390:esame". Both pretty meaningless,
> "s390:31" and "s390:64" would be better.
or maybe "s390:31-bit" and s390:64-bit" ?
> 2) change the bfd_mach_s390_esa preprocessor define to
> bfd_mach_s390_31 and bfd_mach_s390_esame to bfd_mach_s390_64.
> 3) Add the switches -m31 and -m64 to switch to 31 bit or 64 bit.
Err, add the switches to where ? GAS ?
> 4) Add the switches -Aesa and -Aesame to switch between the ESA and
> ESAME architectures. And last but not least 5) add ESAME relocations
> to the 31 bit bfd.
> The idea of 4) and 5) is to enable the use of ESAME instructions on
> a 31 bit system that is running on a machine that supports ESAME.
Presumably then you would generate a warning if -m64 and -Aesa were
used together, or is there an advantage to having 64 bit binaries that
do not support the ESAME instructions ?
> Is there anything that would speak against there changes ?
Not from me.