On Tue, Nov 05, 2002 at 03:19:04PM +0000, Richard Sandiford wrote: > "Steven J. Hill" <sjhill@realitydiluted.com> 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? > > <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/binutils/2002-10/msg00248.html> > > (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 > bfd_get_mach? > > 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. H.J.
