https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22458
Orivej Desh <orivej at gmx dot fr> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Target| |elf32-littlearm
Host| |x86_64 Linux
--- Comment #2 from Orivej Desh <orivej at gmx dot fr> ---
> I suspect what you've done is configured binutils on, say, x86_64-linux with
> --enable-targets=all.
This is correct.
> Making your particular arm target higher priority than others by patching
> match_priority isn't a solution that can be applied to the main binutils
> sources.
If this is so, you have to close this bug report, but I adhere to the opinion
that you expressed in the linked mail [1] that libbfd should disambiguate
elf32-littlearm-* in favor of elf32-littlearm:
“The first hunk in the following patch stops bfd choosing a generic ELF target
(like elf32-little) when another target is a better match (eg.
elf32-littlearm). The last hunk effectively banishes "File format is
ambiguous" errors for ELF. This might be a little controversial, but if
vxworks, symbian and nacl are confused by using the more general machine
specific ELF target then they really should have specified OS_ABI or
implemented target object_p, archive_p and core_file_p functions.”
We have applied the patch that priorities elf32-littlearm in order to support
Rust tests that expect "nm elf32-object.o" to work (on x86_64 Linux) [2]. It
works when binutils are built without --enable-targets=all by selecting
"elf32-little" target, but fails with "File format is ambiguous" error when
binutils are built with more targets.
[1] https://sourceware.org/ml/binutils/2013-05/msg00271.html
[2] https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/pull/30484#issuecomment-345472766
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
_______________________________________________
bug-binutils mailing list
bug-binutils@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-binutils
