From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 9860 invoked by alias); 11 Apr 2007 03:40:36 -0000 Received: (qmail 9848 invoked by uid 22791); 11 Apr 2007 03:40:36 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from smtp110.sbc.mail.mud.yahoo.com (HELO smtp110.sbc.mail.mud.yahoo.com) (68.142.198.209) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with SMTP; Wed, 11 Apr 2007 04:40:34 +0100 Received: (qmail 43638 invoked from network); 11 Apr 2007 03:40:31 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lucon.org) (hjjean@sbcglobal.net@75.61.85.239 with login) by smtp110.sbc.mail.mud.yahoo.com with SMTP; 11 Apr 2007 03:40:30 -0000 X-YMail-OSG: sM2v68wVM1nKk.9xoJcJvIlru8zATw_2y2T6jl_uRXpIJealh6dh5Ht4RqOLLymp2_H9TjV1kDNQmEtcSVLPqF.J.s3MKi9gyMkeIe_19toKe4XwuKp5sTdMJGmS8g-- Received: by lucon.org (Postfix, from userid 500) id 7EA4946EEEB; Tue, 10 Apr 2007 20:40:27 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2007 03:40:00 -0000 From: "H. J. Lu" To: Kai Tietz Cc: binutils@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: PATCH: w64 native support Message-ID: <20070411034027.GA32135@lucon.org> References: <20070410171828.GA22148@lucon.org> <20070410193508.GA22821@lucon.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20070410193508.GA22821@lucon.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.2i Mailing-List: contact binutils-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: binutils-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2007-04/txt/msg00102.txt.bz2 On Tue, Apr 10, 2007 at 12:35:08PM -0700, H. J. Lu wrote: > On Tue, Apr 10, 2007 at 07:51:21PM +0200, Kai Tietz wrote: > > "H. J. Lu" wrote on 10.04.2007 19:18:28: > > > > > On Tue, Apr 10, 2007 at 07:00:14PM +0200, Kai Tietz wrote: > > > > "H. J. Lu" wrote on 10.04.2007 18:12:45: > > > > > > > > > Have you looked at > > > > > > > > > > http://sources.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=2737 > > > > > > > > > > Does windres work for x64? > > > > > > > > > > > > I replaced in all structures of windres.h the type "unsigned long" by > > > > "unsigned int" for test and patched the dependent files to use not > > long > > > > type-specifier in printf methods. It works that way, but I am not > > certain, > > > > if this would break an other target, where "int" isn't 4 bytes long ? > > > ^^^^^ > > > It should be host, not target. > > > > > > It is better than what we have today. You can add > > > > > > assert (sizeof (int) == 4); > > > > > > somewhere. > > > > Ok, I on that. > > > > But I noticed, while bootstrap my patch on it on cygwin, that the > > replacement of long to bfd_vma does not work as explected for 32-bit hosts > > and using --enable-64-bit-bfd. Gcc claims, that pointer size and integer > > size are not fitting. > > I think, we have to introduce a type bfd_hostptr_t or something like that > > to solve this problem ? > > > > I don't think it is needed. --enable-64-bit-bfd works fine for > Linux/x86. If --enable-64-bit-bfd doesn't work for cygwin, it > should be fixed. I think the main problem of the PE port may be there is no clear line bewteen internal and external data structure so that it is very hard to cross compile a PE target on a differnt endian or 64bit host. H.J.