Re: why gcc/objdump not recognize binary object file format

["Bridge Wu" <mingqiao.wu@gmail.com>]

The toolchain-4.1.0 consists of GCC-4.1.0, GLIBC-2.4 and
BINUTILS-2.16.92. The toolchain-3.4.4 should be similar with
CodeSourcery toolchain, I'm not sure. Thanks your hints.

On 6/7/06, Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@false.org> wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 07, 2006 at 10:59:30AM +0100, Nick Clifton wrote:
> > Hi Bridge,
> >
> > >I got two ARM EABI toolchain and want to test their compatibility. One
> > >is 3.4.4 (GCC version), the other is 4.1.0. The result is 4.1.0 can
> > >link the binary code built by 3.4.4, but on the contrary, 3.4.4 cannot
> > >recognize binary file format built by 4.1.0.
> >
> > This does not actually tell us which version of the binutils is being
> > used.  3.4.4 is a GCC version number, not a binutils version number.
>
> Given the version numbers, I'm going to take a wild guess that these
> are CodeSourcery toolchains.  If that's true, they were both 2.16.91
> snapshots, from different dates.
>
> > For most ELF targets you will probably end up in
> > bfd/elfcode.h:elf_object_p().  I suspect that you will find that the
> > checks of the machine code values are the problem.  Otherwise look at
> > the function bfd/elf32-arm.c:elf32_arm_object_p() and see if that is
> > unable to recognise the 4.1.0 generated files.
>
> I'd guess this is caused by the new section types used by the ARM
> tools, e.g. .ARM.attribute.  Binutils gives a somewhat unhelpful error
> message for unsupported section types (although I vaguely remember HJ
> improving this recently).
>
> --
> Daniel Jacobowitz
> CodeSourcery
>


-- 
best regards,
-Bridge