From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail8.parnet.fi (mail8.parnet.fi [77.234.108.134]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CB9633858C60 for ; Tue, 3 Jan 2023 15:51:22 +0000 (GMT) Received: from mail9.parnet.fi (mail9.parnet.fi [77.234.108.21]) by mail8.parnet.fi with ESMTP id 303Fp6YG005356-303Fp6YH005356; Tue, 3 Jan 2023 17:51:06 +0200 Received: from foo.martin.st (host-97-187.parnet.fi [77.234.97.187]) by mail9.parnet.fi (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3A425A1471; Tue, 3 Jan 2023 17:51:06 +0200 (EET) Date: Tue, 3 Jan 2023 17:51:05 +0200 (EET) From: =?ISO-8859-15?Q?Martin_Storsj=F6?= To: Tamar Christina cc: Richard Earnshaw , NightStrike , Mark Harmstone , "wej22007@outlook.com" , "zac.walker@linaro.org" , binutils , "nickc@redhat.com" Subject: RE: [PATCH 1/8] ld: Rename aarch64pe emulation target to arm64pe In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <616f19a0-6777-7933-fe46-e0d65045f523@martin.st> References: <20221230024055.31841-1-mark@harmstone.com> <01e2b3d2-ad18-27ba-9761-82d2d521c00e@foss.arm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed X-FE-Policy-ID: 3:14:2:SYSTEM X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,JMQ_SPF_NEUTRAL,KAM_DMARC_STATUS,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,TXREP autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.6 (2021-04-09) on server2.sourceware.org List-Id: On Tue, 3 Jan 2023, Tamar Christina wrote: > Hi All, > > After some discussions, we would prefer if instead of renaming actual emul target > (which also renamed the internal macros) that we provide a `targ_emul_alias` or similar > instead. This would allow us to keep the current naming as is, while still supporting the > the emul as supported by clang. > > This would be similar to the already existing targ_alias which is used to alias the target > triples. > > I believe (from a quick look) that this should all be do-able by modifying configure.ac in a > similar way as targ_extra_emuls currently does. Sure, that sounds reasonable to me, too. IIRC there were some earlier aarch64pe code in binutils, for EFI usecases - did that rely on keeping this name too? // Martin