maintainership of PEI code in BFD
David Mosberger
davidm@hpl.hp.com
Thu Oct 26 12:14:00 GMT 2000
Hi Donn,
Did you see the follow-up discussion between DJ and myself? It was
sent to binutils@sources.redhat.com so if you don't subscribe to that
list, you obviously didn't see them.
>>>>> On Thu, 26 Oct 2000 09:32:14 -0700, Donn Terry <donnte@microsoft.com> said:
Donn> That split is something more than a year old... "recently"
Donn> doesn't seem applicable.
Well, it turns out that your changes weren't committed to the Cygnus
tree until after I made the EFI/PE+ related changes. So, from my
perspective, they were recent. However, since you made your changes
before the EFI/PE+ changes were committed to the CVS tree, I certainly
see can why it was impossible for you to avoid breaking them... ;-)
Donn> Please be more specific about what the problem is, because it
Donn> was my intent to separate the "generic" PE/PEI stuff from the
Donn> per-architecture stuff.
The main problem is that PE+ uses 8-byte fields in some places where
PE uses 4-byte fields. So clearly the same code cannot work for both
cases. I suspect what we'll need is a similar approach as for the ELF
targets, where there is common source code that gets compiled once for
32-bit targets and once for 64-bit targets. That, plus some
additional hooks to set the EFI-specific file/section alignments and
subsystem id probably would do the trick.
--david
More information about the Binutils
mailing list