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: compatibility of (mips ELF) .o files between binutilsversions?

From: cgd at broadcom dot com
To: drow at mvista dot com
Cc: "H. J. Lu" <hjl at lucon dot org>,"Nick Clifton" <nickc at cambridge dot redhat dot com>,binutils at sources dot redhat dot com
Date: 16 Jul 2002 00:14:20 -0700
Subject: Re: compatibility of (mips ELF) .o files between binutilsversions?
References: <yov5wurxcyd8.fsf@broadcom.com><m3hej1w1lc.fsf@north-pole.nickc.cambridge.redhat.com><yov5fzyknbtj.fsf@broadcom.com> <20020715111139.A2620@lucon.org><20020715182336.GA21895@nevyn.them.org><mailpost.1026757453.1391@news-sj1-1>

At Mon, 15 Jul 2002 18:24:13 +0000 (UTC), "Daniel Jacobowitz" wrote:
> Which begs the question - why did the relocation size change between
> your configurations, Chris?

Uh, because the makers of the tarballs put different magical bits into
each?  8-)

Really, no idea.  I used the unmodified binutils sources from
ftp.gnu.org, as mentioned previously...

chris

References:
- compatibility of (mips ELF) .o files between binutils versions?
  - From: cgd
- Re: compatibility of (mips ELF) .o files between binutils versions?
  - From: Nick Clifton
- Re: compatibility of (mips ELF) .o files between binutilsversions?
  - From: cgd
- Re: compatibility of (mips ELF) .o files between binutils versions?
  - From: H. J. Lu
- Re: compatibility of (mips ELF) .o files between binutils versions?
  - From: Daniel Jacobowitz

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