Re: FatELF patches...

["Måns Rullgård" <mans@mansr.com>]

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