This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the binutils project.
Re: [PATCH/RFA] Mark arm-*-netbsdelf* binaries as ELFOSABI_NETBSD
- From: Philip Blundell <pb at nexus dot co dot uk>
- To: Richard dot Earnshaw at arm dot com
- Cc: thorpej at wasabisystems dot com, binutils at sources dot redhat dot com
- Date: 08 Apr 2002 11:20:01 +0100
- Subject: Re: [PATCH/RFA] Mark arm-*-netbsdelf* binaries as ELFOSABI_NETBSD
- References: <200204081011.LAA29993@cam-mail2.cambridge.arm.com>
On Mon, 2002-04-08 at 11:11, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
> For a fully conforming ARM EABI implementation, this information will be
> determined by looking at EF_ARM_EABI_VERSION (the top 8 bits of the
> EF_FLAGS field). So there's no need to mandate the setting of the
> ELFOSABI field.
But the EI_OSABI field is what you look at in the first instance to
decide whether what you're dealing with is a fully-conforming ARM EABI
implementation. If it is set to some strange value, you can't ascribe
any meaning at all to EF_FLAGS.
> BTW, who allocated ELFOSABI_ARM? I'm fairly certain it wouldn't have been
It certainly wasn't ARM, and I don't think ELFOSABI_ARM was ever
codified by SCO either. I don't remember who exactly made the choice of
97 as a value -- it might have been Nick, Uli, Pat, Scott or possibly
even me -- but at any rate it was just a GNU thing.