Re: QNX binutils targets

[Hans-Peter Nilsson <hp at bitrange dot com>]

On Fri, 25 Oct 2002, H. J. Lu wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 25, 2002 at 02:17:05PM -0400, Hans-Peter Nilsson wrote:
> > On Fri, 25 Oct 2002, H. J. Lu wrote:
> > > On Fri, Oct 25, 2002 at 01:13:07PM -0400, Hans-Peter Nilsson wrote:
> > > > Consider instead creating a special-named section, as proposed
> > > > in <URL:http://sources.redhat.com/ml/binutils/2002-10/msg00454.html>.
> > >
> > > You have no ideas what you are talking about.
> >
> > Yes I do.  (Is this one of those flame wars? :-)
> >
> > Please avoid sounding condescending, at least on the subject of
> > a debated issue.
> >
> > I'm considering compatibility with existing tools and objects
> > too, which I think you're not with the ELFOSABI change.  Having
>
> Backward compatibility is possible with the ELFOSABI change.

Right; I can't see any exclusion on the EI_OSABI field.  So
indeed it seems either solution would work for
backward-compatibility, technically, as far as binutils is
concerned.  Other tools and loaders may hork, but we don't need
to consider them! ;-)

> > > Please see
> > > http://sources.redhat.com/ml/binutils/2002-10/msg00436.html
> >
> > I did (see below); it indicates that a EI_OSABI/ELFOSABI change
> > is wrong.
> >
>
> It is wrong because the ABI is the same. In the case of QNX, the ABI
> is different. Did you get it?

No new facts.  That's what I meant. by "what system the object
is for".  Still, the ELF fields (for example SHT_LOOS through
SHT_HIOS) are interpreted the same, so an EI_OSABI change is
wrong from the specification viewpoint (if only that).  But hey,
changing the EI_OSABI field opens up for QNX to have other
interpretations for the OS-specific ELF fields without
introducing ambiguity!

brgds, H-P