QNX binutils targets

[Graeme Peterson]

Hey.

If possible:

1) I want to maintain backward compatibility with our
   exisiting tools and the binaries the produced. 

2) I want to see that other people do not get the QNX 
   specific behavior when they build --enable-targets=all.

So to achieve point 1 I think I need to use the old naming
conventions, where I basically just extend the default bfd,
but leave the TARGET_LITTLE_NAME alone.

To achive point 2, I think I could start emitting an empty
section, say .<CPU>.GNU.abi.qnx, and look for it in the qnx
specific backend functions, returning without executing the
qnx code if it is not found.

If someone configures for some combination that includes both
a qnx target bfd and the one it is based on, they would have a 
small increase in runtime which checks for the section, and 
behaves accordingly.

Does this seem reasonable?  Is my understanding of the various
proposals here correct?  The ELFOSABI_QNX seems ok, except that
I don't want to break backward compatibility if I can, and if
I have understood the various mails, it would do just that.

The only drawback I see is for QNX, which is that the extensions
would only work on binaries generated with the new tools.  This
is ok.

Thanks as always, and I am quite willing to be corrected if I
am wrong in any of the above.

Cheers.
GP

> 
> On Fri, 25 Oct 2002, Graeme Peterson wrote:
> 
> > Hi, all.
> >
> > I am in the process of adding the ELFOSABI_QNX.  I have some questions and
> > concerns.
> >
> > - How will changing the OSABI and bfd names affect our existing tools
> >   (gcc, gdb, etc...) that use the generic ones?
> 
> I think there will be breakage, perhaps total incompatibility.
> Consider instead creating a special-named section, as proposed
> in <URL:http://sources.redhat.com/ml/binutils/2002-10/msg00454.html>.
> 
> > - My current approach is to add the define in include/elf/common.h:
> >   #define ELFOSABI_QNX     13     /* QNX Neutrino */
> 
> If you follow the binutils list, you should know that H.J.:s
> proposal to change ELFOSABI for this purpose is doubtful.
> 
> See for example
> <URL:http://sources.redhat.com/ml/binutils/2002-10/msg00434.html>,
> links and follow-ups in/to that message.
> 
> brgds, H-P
> 
>