On Mon, Aug 17, 2015 at 8:48 PM, Richard Henderson <r...@twiddle.net> wrote: > On 08/17/2015 08:36 PM, Peter Crosthwaite wrote: >> >> On Mon, Aug 17, 2015 at 11:39 AM, Richard Henderson <r...@twiddle.net> >> wrote: >>> >>> On 08/15/2015 04:28 PM, Peter Crosthwaite wrote: >>>> >>>> - ELF_MACHINE, 0); >>>> + 0xFEED /* EM_MOXIE */, 0); >>> >>> >>> Please add EM_MOXIE to include/elf.h. >>> >> >> So according to this blog, Moxie actually now has a legit EM: >> >> http://moxielogic.org/blog/ (2nd post from top) >> http://www.sco.com/developers/gabi/latest/ch4.eheader.html >> >> Should this 0xFEED be handled the same way as we do for MICROBLAZE_OLD? >> >> #define EM_MICROBLAZE 189 >> #define EM_MICROBLAZE_OLD 0xBAAB > > > Yes. It seems to have been updated in binutils on 2015-01-09. >
So I am comparing elf.h to the binutils common.h and there seems to be a strong correlation but with two major differences: 1: The QEMU one has a large number of arch specific defs not in binutils common.h 2: Binutils covers the arches that are not implemented in QEMU I have started trying to get them a little more synced to aid maintenance. I have got to a stage where you can do a sane diff with binutils common.h. I have synced the whitespace and migrated qemu and arch specifics to a new header. We could however make it like Linux and just periodically sync the headers from binutils or linux verbatim rather than letting QEMU drift with incremental patches? RFC Regards, Peter > > r~ >
