This is the mail archive of the
binutils@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the binutils project.
Porting to a target similar to an existing one
- From: Bernd Jendrissek <berndj at prism dot co dot za>
- To: binutils at sources dot redhat dot com
- Date: Fri, 30 Apr 2004 12:38:20 +0200
- Subject: Porting to a target similar to an existing one
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Hi all
I'm hunting down some problem with a VeriFone SC 5000 pinpad, which
happens to use a v850 processor. So both GCC and binutils support the
instruction set.
Problem: the development libraries are supplied by Green Hills, who use
a different output file format than elf32-v850. It's still ELF, but it
has e_machine = EM_V800 (0x36) instead of EM_V850.
After being flummoxed for a while that the (GNU) linker segfaulted when
I tried to link my object files with their libraries, I realised that
their ELF used different relocations than the GNU elf32-v850!
So now I've just copied most of the v850 stuff into new files named
*-v850.*, and started hacking away. But before I get too far, I guess I
should ask:
What do you guys recommend? Should I just go for a brand new target,
effectively forking the v850 code, or should I litter the v850 code with
flags and ifdefs and other uglification? The different relocation
flavour seems to suggest quite a deep schism...
Any ideas?
Oh, and BTW, is there anywhere I can lookup what the relocations are
supposed to do, besides guessing based on their name? (They have a
utility "gdump" which lists the relocations by name.)
- --
http://voyager.abite.co.za/~berndj/ (up again for now - yay!)
"IBM has more patent litigation lawyers than SCO has employees." - unknown
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.4 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org
iD8DBQFAkiyZ/FmLrNfLpjMRAsutAJ4hn9Bagw2w6lqeE9+Z0Mi5aP35NACeO4a7
YNiKN0wHaQlRRCeuCnAvV78=
=bTOA
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----