PATCH (take 2) - QNX bfd cleanup

[Graeme Peterson]

As Kris mentioned in his posting, we are not removing QNX support.
I don't think I can, as the code now belongs to the FSF, not me or
QNX (that copyright assignment thing ;-) ).

I had already addressed this in a response to another e-mail, which
you may have missed:

	http://sources.redhat.com/ml/binutils/2002-10/msg00674.html


We are cleaning it up by removing the bfd_*qnx_vec entries, and 
instead using the base vectors that we had originally extended.

There are a variety of reasons, including the ambiguous name issue,
but not limited to that.  The code that required a set of qnx bfd's
(which then also may have required an ELFOSABI_QNX), has other
problems, and after researching things, we are not convinced that 
it is the right way to solve the problem we want solved.

>From the diff, bfd/config.bfd:

	*** 371,377 ****
	      targ_selvecs=i386coff_vec
	      ;;
	    i[3456]86-*-nto-qnx*)
	!     targ_defvec=bfd_elf32_i386qnx_vec
	      targ_selvecs=i386coff_vec
	      ;;
	    i[3456]86-*-chorus*)
	--- 371,377 ----
	      targ_selvecs=i386coff_vec
	      ;;
	    i[3456]86-*-nto-qnx*)
	!     targ_defvec=bfd_elf32_i386_vec
	      targ_selvecs=i386coff_vec
	      ;;
	    i[3456]86-*-chorus*)

And similarly for arm, sh and ppc.  Every binutils that QNX has ever 
released used the base vectors.  I want the GNU source to go back to 
that so we can re-investigate things and re-implement a better solution.

I am fairly sure I have achieved this in the 2nd patch.  Can you review 
it and let me know?  If I have in fact removed any QNX support, this is
an error, although I am pretty sure I have not.

Thanks and let me know.
GP

> 
> 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
>