linux-mips
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: 2.4 kernels + >=binutils-2.14.90.0.8

To: linux-mips@linux-mips.org
Subject: Re: 2.4 kernels + >=binutils-2.14.90.0.8
From: Thiemo Seufer <ica2_ts@csv.ica.uni-stuttgart.de>
Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2004 15:22:19 +0100
In-reply-to: <20040323130458.GB6151@linux-mips.org>
Original-recipient: rfc822;linux-mips@linux-mips.org
References: <4058BC76.9020204@gentoo.org> <Pine.LNX.4.55.0403172202060.14525@jurand.ds.pg.gda.pl> <4058DAE2.8000902@gentoo.org> <Pine.LNX.4.55.0403180041560.14525@jurand.ds.pg.gda.pl> <4058E89B.3010208@gentoo.org> <Pine.LNX.4.55.0403180141400.14525@jurand.ds.pg.gda.pl> <Pine.LNX.4.55.0403221255200.6539@jurand.ds.pg.gda.pl> <20040323120033.GA6151@linux-mips.org> <Pine.LNX.4.55.0403231348010.16819@jurand.ds.pg.gda.pl> <20040323130458.GB6151@linux-mips.org>
Sender: linux-mips-bounce@linux-mips.org
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.5.1i
Ralf Baechle wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 23, 2004 at 01:50:27PM +0100, Maciej W. Rozycki wrote:
> 
> >  Some picky firmware may be unhappy about a bit different ELF layout it
> > yields.  Anyway, this is the right way to go and any problems with bad
> > firmware may be able to be compensated with updates to our linker scripts.
> 
> I've had lots of trouble with ECOFF implementations but not with ELF
> which is a nicer design - in particular the obvious way of implementing
> ELF loading is even likely to be the right one.

Well, some people chose to analyse ELF sections for their boot loader
as the "obvious" way...

> Oh well, we'll see - and I guess a binutils person will object to obove
> paragraph the next five minutes ;-)

Am I still in time? ;-)


Thiemo

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>