This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the binutils project.
RE: ABI, I don't get it...
On Wed, 24 Aug 2016, Matthew Fortune wrote:
> I have to say that the linker talking about emulations in error messages
> is completely meaningless to many toolchain developers let alone end
> users so those messages are borderline useless.
Well, to be fair to binutils documentation maintainers I have to observe
that the term "emulation" is used throughout the LD user manual, so there
is at least a point of reference, although I do agree the definition
itself presented there of what a linker emulation is is a bit lacking to
say the least.
You and anyone else are of course welcome to contribute documentation
improvements; perhaps merging this old chapter:
which has been lost to history for some reason, will be a good way to
> That's not to say many
> of the other ABI related error messages are much more helpful but some
> hint that it is an 'ABI' issue is a good start as user's do know that
> there are multiple ABIs in general I think.
You may actually only have support for a single ABI configured and still
get the error message. Although to be fair you won't get this message
unless you mess up GCC driver options (which as a rule of thumb need to be
the same throughout all the software build stages), invoke one part of the
toolchain in the build process directly rather than via the GCC driver
(which is not recommended unless you know what you're doing), or use
binutils built from incorrectly modified sources. Some or all of these
aspects may have already been properly documented, beyond just being
common GNU toolchain lore.
In any case, again, both documentation and error reporting improvements
are always welcome; sometimes being concise and precise both at a time --
as required for a good error message -- is quite a challenge.