This is the mail archive of the
binutils@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the binutils project.
Re: QNX binutils targets
- From: Hans-Peter Nilsson <hp at bitrange dot com>
- To: Graeme Peterson <gp at qnx dot com>
- Cc: binutils at sources dot redhat dot com
- Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2002 14:24:39 -0400 (EDT)
- Subject: Re: QNX binutils targets
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