On Tue, Jun 29, 2021 at 09:52:58AM -0700, Richard Henderson wrote:
On 6/29/21 7:32 AM, Steve McIntyre wrote:
Hi Adhemerval,
On Mon, Jun 28, 2021 at 04:37:34PM -0300, Adhemerval Zanella wrote:
Peter Jones from Red Hat (pjones@redhat.com ) seems to working on adding support for aarch64, by the last common on the thread. His work seems to be quite recent (6th may), so we might want to check with him if he is planning to finish this work.
AIUI Peter started hacking on this a while back, but he told me he was definitely looking for somebody to restart or pick it up. It's not really his area of expertise. I've added him in CC here...
Another option might to check lld, we have it working on llvm for windows on aarch64. It might be ready available or require less adjustment than add the full binutils support.
Ideally it would be nice to have more than just objcopy/ld. At the moment debugging builds is awkward; objdump refuses to do anything useful with our binaries, for example.
Basic format support would include objdump. The second level of support would be ld with elf input and pecoff output. Third level would be pecoff assemble+link.
It shouldn't be difficult to get basic pecoff-arm64 support, which sounds like the level that you require for uefi.
Yeah; I *think* that's all basically working in my tree[0] so long as you don't build multiple PE targets in because of the way epep-arch.h is done, which won't work right. But it's not all dire; I have actually linked working EFI binaries with it.
[0] with the caveat that I have no idea what I'm doing and may have done it all wrong, especially with what appear to be multiple conflicting layered policies on naming things: pe vs coff vs pecoff vs pe image vs DLL, pe vs pe32 and pep vs pe32+ vs aieeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee, plus "arm64"/"aarch64"/"aa64" madness. All the choices are arbitrary and I'm willing to paint the bike shed in any color so long as I get to stop pretending to have a working linker at the end of the day.