This is the mail archive of the
binutils@sourceware.org
mailing list for the binutils project.
Re: RFC: Add 32bit x86-64 support to binutils
- From: "Jan Beulich" <JBeulich at novell dot com>
- To: "H.J. Lu" <hjl dot tools at gmail dot com>
- Cc: "Joseph S. Myers" <joseph at codesourcery dot com>,<gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org>, <binutils at sourceware dot org>, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa at zytor dot com>
- Date: Mon, 03 Jan 2011 10:40:49 +0000
- Subject: Re: RFC: Add 32bit x86-64 support to binutils
- References: <20101230182308.GA21296@intel.com> <Pine.LNX.4.64.1012301831270.30514@digraph.polyomino.org.uk> <AANLkTi=5rp8+1_h=Bt-FLnVW0mDY6N_tLb020XHr4d1n@mail.gmail.com> <Pine.LNX.4.64.1012301905400.30514@digraph.polyomino.org.uk> <AANLkTik6qXqKC8tEizXo1GrvEa7x9UGYaApN1n78Fa-b@mail.gmail.com> <AANLkTimUbL99QQaoAgaBHGctgtTurybP1DEjN8YbNXRt@mail.gmail.com>
>>> On 30.12.10 at 21:02, "H.J. Lu" <hjl.tools@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Here is the ILP32 psABI:
>
> http://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/devel/binutils/ilp32/
>
I think it is a gross misconception to tie the ABI to the ELF class of
an object. Specifying the ABI should imo be done via e_flags or
one of the unused bytes of e_ident, and in all reality the ELF class
should *only* affect the file layout (and 64-bit should never have
forbidden to use 32-bit ELF containers; similarly 64-bit ELF objects
may have uses for 32-bit architectures/ABIs, e.g. when debug
information exceeds the 4G boundary).
Jan