This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the binutils project.
Re: ambiguous file formats coff-x86_64 / pe-x86_64
- From: Alan Modra <amodra at gmail dot com>
- To: Jan Beulich <JBeulich at suse dot com>
- Cc: binutils at sourceware dot org
- Date: Tue, 3 Jan 2017 20:57:53 +1030
- Subject: Re: ambiguous file formats coff-x86_64 / pe-x86_64
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <585BF4AB020000780012BBF5@prv-mh.provo.novell.com> <20161222214952.GB2896@bubble.grove.modra.org> <586B61A5020000780012C791@prv-mh.provo.novell.com>
On Tue, Jan 03, 2017 at 12:32:37AM -0700, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >>> On 22.12.16 at 22:49, <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> > On Thu, Dec 22, 2016 at 07:43:39AM -0700, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >> binary. We've now had reports that on binutils with both coff-x86_64
> >> and pe-x86_64 configured in (but defaulting to ELF), linking fails due
> >> to the object being ambiguous.
> > match_priority was invented for exactly this sort of situation.
> Interesting: I don't see how that would help here, as I don't see
> why (and on what basis) to "prefer" one variant over the other.
> Looking over the source, at least relocation addend handling is
> different between the two, and without other (sideband?) info
> I don't think one can guess the format to be used. The situation
> in our case is different, because we don't care which of the two
> gets used, ad we don't care about their differences.
Hmm, I wonder why coff-x86_64.c has
#define amd64coff_object_p pe_bfd_object_p
#define amd64coff_object_p coff_object_p
and not #ifdef COFF_WITH_PE?
Australia Development Lab, IBM