From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 31616 invoked by alias); 6 Aug 2010 18:21:09 -0000 Received: (qmail 31606 invoked by uid 22791); 6 Aug 2010 18:21:08 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-4.6 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from smtp-outbound-1.vmware.com (HELO smtp-outbound-1.vmware.com) (65.115.85.69) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Fri, 06 Aug 2010 18:21:03 +0000 Received: from mailhost2.vmware.com (mailhost2.vmware.com [10.16.67.167]) by smtp-outbound-1.vmware.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 63E6E5800E; Fri, 6 Aug 2010 11:21:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: from msnyder-server.eng.vmware.com (promd-2s-dhcp138.eng.vmware.com [10.20.124.138]) by mailhost2.vmware.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 588748E921; Fri, 6 Aug 2010 11:21:00 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <4C5C528B.6000304@vmware.com> Date: Fri, 06 Aug 2010 18:21:00 -0000 From: Michael Snyder User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.22 (X11/20090609) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Eli Zaretskii CC: "gdb@sourceware.org" Subject: Re: Platforms using COFF? References: <83lj8kw3ep.fsf@gnu.org> In-Reply-To: <83lj8kw3ep.fsf@gnu.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2010-08/txt/msg00041.txt.bz2 Eli Zaretskii wrote: > I'm sorry for posting a slightly off-topic question, but I think this > forum has many people who know about what I'd like to ask: are there > any current or future platforms that use, or can be reasonably > expected to use, the COFF format for their binary files? > > Background: Emacs has a bunch of implementation of unexec, one each > for every ABI used by platforms that Emacs can be built on. (unexec > is a method of generating an executable binary file from an in-memory > image of a running program.) There are, for example, unexelf.c for > ELF, unexw32.c for pe-coff, etc. There's also unexcoff.c (renamed > yesterday from unexec.c), which was the original implementation > supporting a.out and COFF. Nowadays, it is used only by the MSDOS > (a.k.a. DJGPP) build of Emacs. > > The main issue is this: since only the MSDOS build uses unexcoff.c, I > was asked to clean it up of code that is #ifdef'ed away for the DOS > build. My question is: can we reasonably assume that no future > platform where it makes sense to build Emacs will ever want to use > COFF? If some modern low-end platforms (e.g., some mobile ones) use > or could use COFF, then perhaps some of the code currently unused by > the DOS build should be left in unexcoff.c, for the benefit of these > platforms. Not sure how meaningful, but... grep -li coff config/*/* config/djgpp/fnchange.lst config/powerpc/aix.mh config/rs6000/nm-rs6000.h