Long, long ago, Ian Lance Taylor, a life form in far off space, emitted: >We would discard the ABI in a second if the benefit exceeds the cost.
We agree; I'm happy. >What benefit would we gain by changing the definition of R_386_PC32? As stated, I don't know; the case was discussed as an example of a larger concept which (above) we agree on. >You have not described any benefit beyond abstract appeals to what you >think object files should look like. That doesn't count. Give us a >measurable benefit and we'll consider it. I did: the vast amount of .obj files containing useful procedures would become "interoperable". In terms of available software, one might estimate 10x more .obj files than .o files worldwide. Concreteness? When ld links ELF files, it produces a compact executable (very nice); when ld links COFF files, (a) it apparently cannot output a "very nice" compact ELF file, but rather the longer zero-padded PE format (for PE section alignment) which requires objcopy to convert to ELF with the result still having all the zero-padding. I'm good, at peace, Ian. Nothing to worry about. If my shop makes an ld that can bring all this .obj software into a Linux environment with the very nice compact ELF format (which, as you agree, ld cannot do now), I'm happy. Thank you again. Cheers, Jim _______________________________________________ bug-binutils mailing list bug-binutils@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-binutils