[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Old Index]
Re: fat binaries
In article <B090D4F3-D964-49F8-8F61-0BC3C6E61D49%ieee.org@localhost>,
Gregory McGarry <g.mcgarry%ieee.org@localhost> wrote:
>I really like the concept of the mach fat binaries and have always
>thought that NetBSD could benefit from their use more than any other
>While NetBSD supports fat binaries containing macho executables, I
>did a proof-of-concept to put native ELF executables inside the fat
>container. I wrote a lipo(1) tool based on the same tool on OS X.
>You can find patches at http://ftp.netbsd.org/pub/NetBSD/misc/
>gmcgarry/fat. It's a grotty hack, but it proves that the concept is
>not difficult. The diff is against an 8-month-old version of -
>current. The cat.fat binary supports amd64, i386 and arm.
>What's the general feeling about such a feature? I think it would be
>great for universal boot cds. It would be nice to boot a "netbsd
>desktop" between an amd64 and i386 kernel using the same userland.
>Further changes would be required to the toolchain before widespread
>adoption. gdb works, but will only recognise the ELF binaries
>extracted from the fat binary. ld would need to grok shared libs
>inside the fat container.
>If there is enthusiasm for the feature, I'll try to factor common
>code between ELF and macho for a clean patch. I'll also look into
>modifying pcc to build fat binaries.
Perhaps it is better to do this using something like HP/UX's CDF's?
Main Index |
Thread Index |