From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 7111 invoked by alias); 18 Oct 2002 17:38:13 -0000 Mailing-List: contact binutils-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: binutils-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 7103 invoked from network); 18 Oct 2002 17:38:12 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO sccrmhc03.attbi.com) (204.127.202.63) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 18 Oct 2002 17:38:12 -0000 Received: from lucon.org ([12.234.88.146]) by sccrmhc03.attbi.com (InterMail vM.4.01.03.27 201-229-121-127-20010626) with ESMTP id <20021018173811.IPOD24979.sccrmhc03.attbi.com@lucon.org>; Fri, 18 Oct 2002 17:38:11 +0000 Received: by lucon.org (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 16E372C4EC; Fri, 18 Oct 2002 10:38:11 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2002 10:38:00 -0000 From: "H. J. Lu" To: Ulrich Drepper Cc: Alan Modra , Matt Thomas , binutils@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [Patch] sh64: Fix gas testsuite expected output Message-ID: <20021018103811.A16869@lucon.org> References: <000a01c274d8$7c7e5fd0$6301a8c0@wren> <20021015230020.A29100@lucon.org> <20021015233936.A29638@lucon.org> <20021016181722.U22176@bubble.sa.bigpond.net.au> <20021016061625.A2765@lucon.org> <20021017003304.Z22176@bubble.sa.bigpond.net.au> <5.1.1.6.2.20021016094138.08e12d78@3am-software.com> <20021018182622.E12895@bubble.sa.bigpond.net.au> <20021015202723.B26432@lucon.org> <3DB0435B.50000@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5.1i In-Reply-To: <3DB0435B.50000@redhat.com>; from drepper@redhat.com on Fri, Oct 18, 2002 at 10:22:35AM -0700 X-SW-Source: 2002-10/txt/msg00437.txt.bz2 On Fri, Oct 18, 2002 at 10:22:35AM -0700, Ulrich Drepper wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > Alan Modra wrote: > > > I believe the real test for a change in OSABI or ABIVERSION is: > > Will a consumer of ELF files, such as a linker, that properly handles > > ELF files conforming to the gABI and relevant psABI, be able to > > properly handle your particular ELF files? > > > As said many times, yes, this is the only use for this field. All other > marking of an ELF file must be done with other means and the method > agreed on a looong time ago is a special note segment. > As far as I know, ELF is an ABI for SVR4. That basically means it is for Unix alike systems similar to SVR4. In elf32-sh.c, there are #define ELF_MAXPAGESIZE 128 #define elf_symbol_leading_char '_' They don't like a reasonable SVR4 system to me. It is more like a standalone or embedded ABI. That is why I suggested ELF/sh should set #define ELFOSABI_STANDALONE 255 /* Standalone (embedded) application */ We should create elf*-sh*-svr.c for SVR4 and use #define ELFOSABI_NONE 0 /* UNIX System V ABI */ We should do it now before it is too late. H.J.