Re: i386-pc-nto-qnx patch

["Graeme Peterson" <gp at qnx dot com>]

About the ELF interpreter.  We have a different loader version in
6.1+ than in pre 6.1.  We handle this in gcc (specs) and in our
front end 'qcc' (conf files).

This is how we have done it and will probably continue to do it.
It is how we ship our tools chain, and if we need to update the
loader again, then the specs and conf files for that OS version
will reflect it.

It seems to me that it is six of one, half a dozen of the other as to
whether this gets done in gcc or binutils.  My preference is gcc,
because we need to have a QNX specific specs file anyway, this is
how we already do it, and this limits the number of QNX specific 
changes that need to be rolled in and maintained in binutils.

Who makes this decision?  There are two conflicting patch submissions,
both of which work, but not together.

Regards and thanks,
GP
 
> > 
> > "Graeme Peterson" <gp@qnx.com> writes:
> > > Here is a patch for i386-pc-nto-qnx for inclusion in
> > > GNU binutils.  Thanks to all for your help.
> > 
> > > Thanks.
> > > Looking forward to any feedback.
> > 
> > You'll need ChangeLog entries for all these changes.
> 
> Mmm.  Wondered about that.  I'll look for info on format, etc...
> 
> > 
> > Aside from the BFD changes, these changes are similar to the binutils
> > port I recently submitted.  However, I think linker configuration is
> > superior in my port.  Mine has emulparms/elf_i386_qnx.sh inheriting
> > from elf_i386.sh and elf_qnx.sh, eliminating duplicate definitions and
> > setting things up so that definitions common to all QNX ports can live 
> > in one place.
> 
> Yes, that sounds better.  It is the emulparms equivalent of what I did
> (with help from various and sundry) in the bfd backend.
> 
> > 
> > Since then, I've split it into elf_qnx60.sh and elf_qnx61.sh, as the
> > ELF interpreter is different in 6.0 and 6.1.  I think it's marginally
> > better to set the interpreter in the linker, since that allows the
> > same gcc config to target both versions of the OS.  At least this is
> > true with my gcc port.
> 
> I will have to educate myself here.  Can't comment yet...
> 
> > 
> > The config triple is i[3456]86-*-nto-qnx* in bfd, and i[3456]86-*-nto* 
> > in gas and ld.  These should probably be consistant.  I'd recommend the 
> > latter, especially if/when we have to distinguish between versions as
> > the master config.guess will return a pattern like i386-pc-nto-qnx6.10.
> 
> Yup again.  That looks better.  Consistancy is always good.  I'll make that
> change here.
> 
> Thanks, J.T.
> 
> Regards,
> GP
> 
> > 
> >         --jtc
> > 
> > -- 
> > J.T. Conklin
> > 
> 
> 
>