This is the mail archive of the binutils@sourceware.org mailing list for the binutils project.

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: [09/11] TI C6X binutils port: binutils/

-    case ELFOSABI_STANDALONE:	return _("Standalone App");
-    case ELFOSABI_ARM:		return "ARM";
     default:
+      if (osabi >= 64)
+	switch (elf_header.e_machine)

Is this really what we want to be doing here?  It seems inconsistent to
be handling these three ABIs in a machine-specific way, while the others
are all machine-independent.  I think it's misleading to return
"unknown" for known ABIs just because they're on the wrong chip,
especially as readelf is often used for debugging object files.
Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]