Re: Change ELFOSABI in SH (Re: [Patch] sh64: Fix gas testsuiteexpected output)

[Hans-Peter Nilsson <hp at bitrange dot com>]

On Wed, 23 Oct 2002, kaz Kojima wrote:
> "H. J. Lu" <hjl@lucon.org> wrote:
> >> So I guess that the ambiguity for existing objects can be handled by
> >> adding something to bfd_check_format_matches which selects an appropriate
> >> representative vector from the ambiguity set if possible, as it was
> >> already done when the default vector is included in this set.
> >> Thoughts?

>From my now-outside perspective, I think it'd be better to have
the port see a difference (which there currently is none for
*unlinked objects*), such as with my special-empty-section
proposal.  (It'd also be much less of a hassle than IMHO
wrongfully changing ELFOSABI.)

> > Someone from SH should read
> >
> > http://sources.redhat.com/ml/binutils/2002-10/msg00437.html
> >
> > The old one is very unreasonable. Do it now before it is too late. I
> > can supply patches if necessary.

FWIW, I disagree with H.J. about the gravity and the solution.

> I'm not a one from SH :-)

Me neither. :-)  I think Joern is the right person to ask for
that.

> Anyway, my argument about bfd_check_format_matches is for
> "existing objects".

Um, only for objects that aren't matched by the default target
vector, right?

For executables, make elf_object_p look at .note.ABI-tag. (They
don't have the same contents on NetBSD, no?)  Create one (or
something equivalent) for DSO:s too; it seems like that doesn't
happen.

brgds, H-P