On Tue, Nov 05, 2002 at 03:19:04PM +0000, Richard Sandiford wrote:
> "Steven J. Hill" <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> > In the '_bfd_mips_elf_final_write_processing' function in 'bfd/elfxx-mips.c'
> > If I print out the EF_MIPS_ARCH flags for the input BFD descriptor. It
> > is properly set to 'MIPS2', but when the case statement in
> > '_bfd_mips_elf_final_write_processing' is traversed, it
> > uses the R3000/default case which means that the target CPU architecture
> > didn't get put into the BFD descriptor.
> Is it related to this?
> (In the message body, I accidentally copied the code after
> the patch rather than before. Sorry about that.)
> Anyway, that patch won't solve your problem, but the issue
> seems to be the same: _bfd_mips_elf_merge_private_bfd_data()
> merges the EF_MIPS_ARCH and EF_MIPS_MACH bits, but
> _bfd_mips_elf_final_write_processing() overwrites them
> based on the BFD mach.
> Personally, I think _bfd_mips_elf_final_write_processing()
> is doing the right thing. Surely we ought to be able to
> set EF_MIPS_ARCH and EF_MIPS_MACH based on the value of
> I wonder whether _bfd_mips_elf_merge_private_bfd_data() should
> be checking for compatibility based on the BFD machs rather
> than the header flags. It seems a bit odd that we check the
> ISA level and "machine" separately.
> In other words, replace:
> /* Compare the ISA's. */
> if ((new_flags & (EF_MIPS_ARCH | EF_MIPS_MACH))
> != (old_flags & (EF_MIPS_ARCH | EF_MIPS_MACH)))
> with code that checks bfd_get_mach (ibfd) against bfd_get_mach (obfd).
> If ibfd's architecture is an extension of obfd's, copy it to obfd.
The FSF binutils has never been right. I have fixed it in my Linux
binutils. See my followups on this thread.