This is the mail archive of the
binutils@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the binutils project.
Re: gcc-3.1 builds for targets sh-hms
- From: Nick Clifton <nickc at cambridge dot redhat dot com>
- To: "Rekha Deshmukh" <RekhaD at kpit dot com>
- Cc: Nick at north-pole dot nickc dot cambridge dot redhat dot com,Clifton at north-pole dot nickc dot cambridge dot redhat dot com,[mailto:nickc at cambridge dot redhat dot com]@north-pole.nickc.cambridge.redhat.com,Rekha at north-pole dot nickc dot cambridge dot redhat dot com,Deshmukh at north-pole dot nickc dot cambridge dot redhat dot com,<binutils at sources dot redhat dot com>
- Date: 15 May 2002 09:41:37 +0100
- Subject: Re: gcc-3.1 builds for targets sh-hms
- References: <69595093233BB547BB70CF5E492B63F22C53B5@sohm.kpit.com>
Hi Rekha,
> But, before this patch, I was doing some r&d and was successful in
> building the binutils for sh-hms using --enable-bfd-assembler. Is it
> so, that the bfd-assembler is not to be used for sh-hms or by
> default it is not used?
By default it is not used. However this default ought to be
changed :-) Non-BFD assembler support is old and is slowly suffering
from bit rot. There is no really good reason why the sh-hms port
should not be using a BFD based assembler. I guess up until now no-one
actually tried building the sh-hms port.
> Uptill now I was considering coff and hms formats to be the
> same. What is the actual difference between the both?
To be honmest I do not know. I suspect that the hms format is
somebody's extensions to COFF. It is unlikely that they are very well
supported these days.
Cheers
Nick