From: "Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@novell.com>
To: "Nick Clifton" <nickc@redhat.com>
Cc: <binutils@sourceware.org>
Subject: Re: ld's targets vs emulations (intending to link EFI binaries on Linux)
Date: Wed, 11 May 2011 06:59:00 -0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4DCA4FCA0200007800040E98@vpn.id2.novell.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4DC967BE.2020201@redhat.com>
Hi Nick,
>>> On 10.05.11 at 18:28, Nick Clifton <nickc@redhat.com> wrote:
>> What is the point of ld supporting (in e.g. the default x86 Linux
>> configurations) PE executables as targets, but not as emulations?
>> This basically means that one can link such executables, but there's
>> no control over the various linking parameters (as those are
>> processed by the respective [not present] emulation code).
>
> Essentially this is because it is easier this way. Supporting multiple,
> dissimilar emulations would make the linker a lot more complex.
Reads sort of contradictory to me: The target (and hence the
output format) *is* supported, its the various special things that
can't be controlled.
Also things being easier isn't a really good reason for a partial
implementation imo.
> Changing the output format is actually a problematic feature of the
> linker, and one that is disabled for some architectures. It is much
> cleaner to link without changing format and then use objcopy to convert
> the resulting binary. You are correct however in saying that objcopy
> will not convert relocations and this is actually one of the big
> problems with format conversions - there is rarely a good mapping
> between the relocations of the formats.
Without any special relocations involved, there ought to be a pretty
clean mapping between ELF and PE relocations (on x86 at least).
Anyway, while for i386 to build a linker that can build both ELF
and full-featured PE, all it takes is an extra configure option
(--enable-target=i386-pe or some such), for x86-64 to be able
to do the same one needs to first introduce such a bfd and
linker target. Would a change like the below be acceptable for
mainline?
--- binutils-2.21/bfd/config.bfd
+++ 2.21/bfd/config.bfd
@@ -632,7 +632,7 @@ case "${targ}" in
targ_selvecs="bfd_elf32_i386_vec i386linux_vec i386pei_vec x86_64pei_vec bfd_elf64_l1om_vec"
want64=true
;;
- x86_64-*-mingw*)
+ x86_64-*-mingw* | x86_64-*-pe | x86_64-*-pep )
targ_defvec=x86_64pe_vec
targ_selvecs="x86_64pe_vec x86_64pei_vec bfd_elf64_x86_64_vec bfd_elf64_l1om_vec i386pe_vec i386pei_vec bfd_elf32_i386_vec"
want64=true
--- binutils-2.21/ld/configure.tgt
+++ 2.21/ld/configure.tgt
@@ -274,6 +274,9 @@ i[3-7]86-*-cygwin*) targ_emul=i386pe ;
test "$targ" != "$host" && LIB_PATH='${tooldir}/lib/w32api' ;;
i[3-7]86-*-mingw32*) targ_emul=i386pe ;
targ_extra_ofiles="deffilep.o pe-dll.o" ;;
+x86_64-*-pe | x86_64-*-pep) targ_emul=i386pep ;
+ targ_extra_emuls=i386pe ;
+ targ_extra_ofiles="deffilep.o pep-dll.o pe-dll.o" ;;
x86_64-*-mingw*) targ_emul=i386pep ;
targ_extra_emuls=i386pe
targ_extra_ofiles="deffilep.o pep-dll.o pe-dll.o" ;;
(In the ld part I followed the model of not merging distinct entries,
albeit it would be possible to simply extend the mingw case - i386
has winnt, pe, and mingw all listed separately despite them all
specifying exactly the same.)
What the original question boils down to is whether i386 and x86_64
Linux selections shouldn't default to enable PE emulations (and not
just the respective BFD targets).
Thanks, Jan
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2011-05-11 6:59 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2011-05-02 7:44 Jan Beulich
2011-05-10 16:28 ` Nick Clifton
2011-05-11 6:59 ` Jan Beulich [this message]
2011-05-12 11:04 ` Nick Clifton
2011-05-13 6:54 ` Jan Beulich
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=4DCA4FCA0200007800040E98@vpn.id2.novell.com \
--to=jbeulich@novell.com \
--cc=binutils@sourceware.org \
--cc=nickc@redhat.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).