Messages in this thread | | | From | Måns Rullgård <> | Subject | Re: FatELF patches... | Date | Sun, 01 Nov 2009 20:28:27 +0000 |
| |
David Hagood <david.hagood@gmail.com> 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.
-- Måns Rullgård mans@mansr.com
-- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |