This is the mail archive of the binutils@sources.redhat.com mailing list for the binutils project.

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format:	[Raw text]

Re: EI_ABIVERSION usage

From: "David O'Brien" <obrien at FreeBSD dot org>
To: "H . J . Lu" <hjl at lucon dot org>
Cc: Richard dot Earnshaw at arm dot com, Jason R Thorpe <thorpej at wasabisystems dot com>, Geoff Keating <geoffk at redhat dot com>, binutils at sources dot redhat dot com
Date: Wed, 8 May 2002 11:27:32 -0700
Subject: Re: EI_ABIVERSION usage
Organization: The NUXI BSD group
References: <20020507174514.B31998@dragon.nuxi.com> <200205081107.MAA17990@cam-mail2.cambridge.arm.com> <20020508092736.B3924@lucon.org>
Reply-to: obrien at FreeBSD dot org

On Wed, May 08, 2002 at 09:27:36AM -0700, H . J . Lu wrote:
> The runtime implementation is free to do whatever it wants. But it is not
> the concern of binutils.

Turn that around (which I did in my last email) and lets see how people
feel:

    Is there today, or is there planned to be functionality such that the
    value of EI_OSABI and EI_ABIVERSION will cause a problem?

    I.e., if the implementation does whatever it wants, is Binutils going
    to get in the way.

Follow-Ups:
- Re: EI_ABIVERSION usage
  - From: H . J . Lu

References:
- Re: EI_ABIVERSION usage
  - From: David O'Brien
- Re: EI_ABIVERSION usage
  - From: Richard Earnshaw
- Re: EI_ABIVERSION usage
  - From: H . J . Lu

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]