This is the mail archive of the binutils@sourceware.org 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: How feasible is it to port gold to mingw?

From: Ian Lance Taylor <iant at google dot com>
To: NightStrike <nightstrike at gmail dot com>
Cc: Greatwolf <gmane dot greatwolf at mamber dot net>, binutils at sources dot redhat dot com
Date: Mon, 06 Dec 2010 15:43:25 -0800
Subject: Re: How feasible is it to port gold to mingw?
References: <Xns9E44BF45A3CD6gmanegreatwolfmamber@80.91.229.10> <AANLkTinqUx4WA-jBgGjaf8Y+-0yOpxVqFP5M-b5-QCnM@mail.gmail.com>

NightStrike <nightstrike@gmail.com> writes:

> I would think that if it's written in C++ in a true object oriented
> form, that it would be easy to derive a new target from an existing
> template using some random appropriate design pattern.

No.  This assumes that linking ELF is fundamentally the same as linking
PE-COFF.  It is not.  The shared library model is completely different.
I suspect that a PE-COFF linker needs fewer passes; in particular I
suspect that it does not need a second pass over the input files
gathering relocation information.

Ian

Follow-Ups:
- Re: How feasible is it to port gold to mingw?
  - From: NightStrike

References:
- How feasible is it to port gold to mingw?
  - From: Greatwolf
- Re: How feasible is it to port gold to mingw?
  - From: NightStrike

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