Re: FatELF patches...
From: Måns Rullgård
Date: Sun Nov 01 2009 - 15:29:04 EST
David Hagood <david.hagood@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
> On Thu, 2009-10-29 at 22:19 -0400, Ryan C. Gordon wrote:
>> Having heard a bunch of commentary, and made a bunch of changes based on
>> some really good feedback, here are my hopefully-final FatELF patches.
> I hope it's not too late for a request for consideration: if we start
> having fat binaries, could one of the "binaries" be one of the "not
> quite compiled code" formats like Architecture Neutral Distribution
> Format (ANDF), such that, given a fat binary which does NOT support a
> given CPU, you could at least in theory process the ANDF section to
> create the needed target binary? Bonus points for being able to then
> append the newly created section to the file.
Am I the only one who sees this as nothing bloat for its own sake?
Did I miss a massive drop in intelligence of Linux users, causing them
to no longer be capable of picking the correct file themselves?
> As an embedded systems guy who is looking to have to support multiple
> CPU types, this is really very interesting to me.
As an embedded systems guy, I'm more concerned about precious flash
space going to waste than about some hypothetical convenience.
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/