Re: gas configure.in [Was: Re: segfault here (bfd), segfault there]

[Alan Modra]

On Wed, Apr 09, 2003 at 11:09:50AM +0200, Bernd Jendrissek wrote:
> What's with that "i386-pc-pe-coff != i386-pc-coff" comment?  Is PE *that*
> different to COFF that the i386coff emulation gets thrown out?
Yes.  Incidentally, since you seem willing to tinker, there's a
binutils+gcc patch that might improve PE compatability with microsoft
at ftp://ftp.interopsystems.com/src/gcc/update.nov8.tar.gz.  I've
been meaning to look at it for a long time in order to integrate the
changes into the official binutils sources, but so far haven't had
a spare moment.

[snip]
> Is this perhaps a difference between GNU binutils and "linux" binutils?
No, I don't think HJ has made any changes here.

> Ah!  (Is there anything win-ish in *nt other than winnt itself?  Maybe I
> want to write an OS called tintc - TINTC Is Not Turing Complete... :)
Then you'd add a pattern that matched tintc before the *nt* one.

> But this makes me think I'll just try deleting that i386-*-pe-coff special
> case above - the worst that can happen is it won't work, right?
Heh.  No, the worst is that it wouldn't work, then you'd post here
asking for help.  :-)

-- 
Alan Modra
IBM OzLabs - Linux Technology Centre