From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 5025 invoked by alias); 8 Aug 2006 10:05:10 -0000 Received: (qmail 5016 invoked by uid 22791); 8 Aug 2006 10:05:09 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (66.187.233.31) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Tue, 08 Aug 2006 10:05:07 +0000 Received: from int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (int-mx1.corp.redhat.com [172.16.52.254]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id k78A52Qe020049; Tue, 8 Aug 2006 06:05:02 -0400 Received: from pobox.surrey.redhat.com (pobox.surrey.redhat.com [172.16.10.17]) by int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id k78A4ukf024428; Tue, 8 Aug 2006 06:04:56 -0400 Received: from [10.32.68.3] (vpn-68-3.surrey.redhat.com [10.32.68.3]) by pobox.surrey.redhat.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id k78A4sbE012723; Tue, 8 Aug 2006 11:04:54 +0100 Message-ID: <44D861C5.5040408@redhat.com> Date: Tue, 08 Aug 2006 10:05:00 -0000 From: Nick Clifton User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.4 (X11/20060516) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Pedro Alves CC: Daniel Jacobowitz , binutils@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] : Correct ARM_RVA32 value in pe images generation for arm Windows CE. References: <44AA6CE1.8070708@portugalmail.pt> <20060705004409.GA31620@nevyn.them.org> <44D8606F.1040903@portugalmail.pt> In-Reply-To: <44D8606F.1040903@portugalmail.pt> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact binutils-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: binutils-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2006-08/txt/msg00087.txt.bz2 Hi Pedro, >>> Can anyone point me to a list of which platforms use arm-pe? >>> What is this epoc arm target used for? >> I don't know for sure, but the only EPOC I'm familiar with is the image >> format used for SymbianOS. The arm-epoc-pe target was for the SymbianOS. The epoc qualifier was added to distinguish it from the WinCE targeted PE format version. Ideally arm-pe should have been dropped, but it never was. > So, I guess there is arm-pe, and arm-epoc-pe, both > supporting Symbian targets (different SDK versions??), By now the answer is probably yes. At the time the arm-epoc-pe target was introduced, the answer was no. > [target] [bfd image format] > arm-pe pei-arm-little > arm-epoc-pe epoc-pei-arm-little > arm-wince-pe pei-arm-little > > If I am correct, then problem is that arm-pe and arm-wince-pe use the > same bfd format names, but they aren't really the same. > The reloc id numbers are different, and wince doesn't use underscores > while arm-pe does, among other differences. > > Should I rename wince's bfd format? wince-pei-arm-little? Then, I would > just add a new entry to pe_detail_list[] with the correct values. Yes, this would be a very good idea. Cheers Nick