This is the mail archive of the binutils@sources.redhat.com 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] |
Actually, I disagree with you on this point. I don't think the underlying design of BFD is particularly sound. It is, however, very flexible, and thus can be contorted to support whatever is needed. When I rewrote the linker several years ago to make it much faster, the key element of the design (which was done by SAC), was to break the underlying design of BFD.
I think it was in 1993 that I first suggested that BFD needed to be scrapped, and redesigned and rewritten from scratch. Needless to say, Cygnus never cared to pay for that effort.
All of this is irrelevant to the main question of whether BFD should maintain support for obsolete targets. My experience with BFD is that maintaining that support is very cheap. This is a result of BFD's design, in which new features are typically added on without touching existing code. The BFD_JUMP_TABLE macros generally cause old targets to be automatically updated without requiring anybody to actually touch the files.
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |