This is the mail archive of the binutils@sources.redhat.com mailing list for the binutils project.

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format:	[Raw text]

Re: QNX binutils targets

From: "H. J. Lu" <hjl at lucon dot org>
To: Hans-Peter Nilsson <hp at bitrange dot com>
Cc: Graeme Peterson <gp at qnx dot com>,Segher Boessenkool <segher at koffie dot nl>, binutils at sources dot redhat dot com
Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2002 13:58:17 -0700
Subject: Re: QNX binutils targets
References: <20021025113010.C17001@lucon.org> <Pine.BSF.4.44.0210251452580.80017-100000@dair.pair.com>

On Fri, Oct 25, 2002 at 03:01:31PM -0400, Hans-Peter Nilsson wrote:
> > >
> >
> > 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!

Have you looked at elf32-qnx.c? The QNX ABI is different from the SVR4
ABI for x86. That is why they need a separate bfd target. Otherwise,
it is not necessary to have a QNX target at all.


H.J.

References:
- Re: QNX binutils targets
  - From: H. J. Lu
- Re: QNX binutils targets
  - From: Hans-Peter Nilsson

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]