This is the mail archive of the
binutils@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the binutils project.
Re: QNX bfd backend and ELFOSABI_QNX
- From: jtc at acorntoolworks dot com (J.T. Conklin)
- To: "Graeme Peterson" <gp at qnx dot com>
- Cc: binutils at sources dot redhat dot com
- Date: 28 Oct 2002 13:47:05 -0800
- Subject: Re: QNX bfd backend and ELFOSABI_QNX
- References: <200210281926.TAA728096812@node128.ott.qnx.com>
- Reply-to: jtc at acorntoolworks dot com
"Graeme Peterson" <gp@qnx.com> writes:
> Regarding the QNX bfd backend and ELFOSABI_QNX:
>
> I have taken this up with my bosses/superiors here at QNX,
> and I have been asked to take out the qnx specific backend
> code that Alan Modra, Nick Clifton, HJ and others have helped
> so much with.
However, as a QNX user, not having any QNX support in the current
binutils is crippling. It will be even more so once my QNX gcc port
makes it into a formal release, since users won't be able to move to
non-QNX hosts for QNX target development.
Surely something can be done. In the worst case, perhaps we can go
with a QNX config that is an alias for the SysV ABI. It won't work
for the QNX kernel, but it appears to work well enough for normal user
binaries. In fact, I submitted such a patch to binutils about the
same time Graeme did, and we're still using tools built with it for
our production builds.
> For a variety of reasons, we think this is the right thing
> to do for now. When we have the time we will re-examine this
> issue and come up with another solution.
I hope this is sooner rather than later. As you're aware, we've had
nothing but frustration with QNX-native tools over the last few years.
This is why I was given the time to provide an alternate toolchain. I
was hoping that QSSL assigning you to integrate your local changes
into the master sources signified a turn in a more positive direction.
I will now have to tell my bosses/superiors that this was not the case.
> At this time, we do not want a QNX specific ELFOSABI, and will
> not be registering one with caldera.
The fact is that the QNX extensions do create an new ABI, and as such
they should be branded as such. I think H.J. was right on the money
when he advocated so strongly.
> I will put together a patch ASAP and submit it for your
> consideration.
IMO, what is done should not be undone so quickly.
--jtc
--
J.T. Conklin