QNX binutils targets

[Hans-Peter Nilsson]

On Fri, 25 Oct 2002, Graeme Peterson wrote:
> 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.

I think you need to change the name.  That alone (I hope) is not
a debatable issue.  It also wouldn't affect compatibility for
binutils.

> 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.

Exactly what I propose.

> 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.

I think that's not a big deal.

> Does this seem reasonable?  Is my understanding of the various
> proposals here correct?

I think so.

>  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.

Yep.

brgds, H-P