Date: Sat, 1 Jul 2006 15:20:05 +0300 From: Kostik Belousov <kostikbel@gmail.com> To: Mikhail Teterin <mi+kde@aldan.algebra.com> Cc: current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: weird limitation on the system's binutils Message-ID: <20060701122005.GC37822@deviant.kiev.zoral.com.ua> In-Reply-To: <200607010009.09231@aldan> References: <200607010009.09231@aldan>
index | next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail
[-- Attachment #1 --] On Sat, Jul 01, 2006 at 12:09:08AM -0400, Mikhail Teterin wrote: > Hello! > > I'm wondering, why the bfd and related bits and pieces of binutils are built > to support only the architecture(s), that can natively run on the system? > > Why can't I use gdb or objdump on FreeBSD/i386 to analyze a core file, or a > binary from another FreeBSD or even from a non-FreeBSD system? > > The tools themselves support that. The sources (bfd-vectors) for all other > supported architectures are part of the tree (under contrib/). So, why not > build them? AFAIK, binutils can only support one architecture per invocation of configuration scripts. I.e., you cannot have one gas binary that would provide both i386-elf and hppa-som targets. Correct me, if I'm wrong. [-- Attachment #2 --] -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.4 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQFEpmh0C3+MBN1Mb4gRAp1uAKCZTXz8j/nC1y0uxIBVk4drVWKqHgCgyZyr gRXmLt9Lgnhu3ipKCNq0A7E= =Piu/ -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----help
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20060701122005.GC37822>