This is the mail archive of the 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: [PATCH 3/5] gas: Default to ELF for RTEMS targets

On 19/01/17 23:59, Joel Sherrill wrote:

On 1/19/2017 4:55 PM, Alan Modra wrote:
On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 09:39:39AM -0600, Joel Sherrill wrote:
One of the reasons this was duplicated was to ensure
that when someone tinkered with a target they knew
XXX-rtems was impacted. With this patch, there is
no record of each cpu-rtems being a used target.

I know binutils doesn't remove targets often but this
makes the individual RTEMS targets invisible.

It definitely means we likely don't have to touch
these files for new targets but it also means
we aren't obvious when deprecation discussions

It would be nice to have a binutils maintainer wade
in. I can see how this is a nice clean up patch but
it loses information.  What are the thoughts on this?

I would prefer to lose that information.  We're talking about bfd/
here, and given that there is no difference between bfd support for
<target>-elf and <target>-rtems, it doesn't make much sense to
single out rtems targets in config.bfd.  The only concern would be if
a future change removed support for <target>-elf but you wanted to
keep <target>-rtems.  However, I can't see us deprecating an ELF
target unless all support for <target> is no longer wanted.

That's the second opinion I wanted. Just wanted to
confirm that someone with a broader binutils thought
the information loss would be OK.

I am OK with it.

Thanks for your review. One side-effect of this patch set is support for RISC-V and 64-bit PowerPC for RTEMS.

Would someone mind committing this and

for me?

Sebastian Huber, embedded brains GmbH

Address : Dornierstr. 4, D-82178 Puchheim, Germany
Phone   : +49 89 189 47 41-16
Fax     : +49 89 189 47 41-09
E-Mail  :
PGP     : Public key available on request.

Diese Nachricht ist keine geschäftliche Mitteilung im Sinne des EHUG.

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]