Re: Opcodes and bfd & plugins.

[Ian Lance Taylor <ian at airs dot com>]

"nshmyrev" <nshmyrev@yandex.ru> writes:

> We are interesting in using bfd and opcodes for different 
> and quickly changing architecture configuration. The current situation 
> force us to rebuild binutils after code modification. 

Well, yes, but if you keep the object directory around, it shouldn't
take very long to rebuild the binutils for the new configuration.
Usually only a few .o files have to be regenerated.  It shouldn't take
all that much longer than building the plugin.

> Is there any way to use plugins such as shared libraries to define new 
> architecure?

Not at present, no.

> Is there a binutils TODO list which includes some goals other than new target 
> addition and obsolete target removal?

I don't know of any formal TODO list.

> At last, is there any interest in modification of binutils library itself to made 
> it plugable?

A plugable interface is inevitably slightly slower, so most people
would not want to use it.  There are very few people who would benefit
from a plugable interface--basically just people in your position.

That said, if you develop patches for a plugable interface, and they
do not impose a maintenance burden and do not make the program any
slower in the normal case, they would probably be accepted.  You might
be able to build on top of the gas emulation support, although I don't
know what state that is in.

Ian