Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2001 08:46:44 +0200 (IST)
From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
X-Sender: eliz AT is
To: "Mark E." <snowball3 AT bigfoot DOT com>
cc: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Subject: Re: possible objcopy problem.
In-Reply-To: <3A8FEEC3.5120.1473CE@localhost>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.91.1010219084617.18927C-100000@is>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Reply-To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Errors-To: nobody AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To: listserv AT delorie DOT com
Precedence: bulk


On Sun, 18 Feb 2001, Mark E. wrote:

> > > The output arch. is set [to] the input arch when copying. But since 'binary' 
> > > usually doesn't have an arch. for BFD to catch on to, a warning message is 
> > > output.
> > 
> > But doesn't coff-go32 identify the output architecture unambiguously?
> 
> Sure. But objcopy doesn't care if the output arch. can be deduced from the 
> output target because it doesn't even try to.

Should it?  I mean, to me, "copy from format A to format B" means that
the result should be a valid format B object.  So it sounds
counter-intuitive that objcopy doesn't care about what the target
format says about the architecture.

Am I missing something?

Are there cases where the output format does _not_ define an
architecture?  Could someone give an example?