AVR32 Elf machine number

[Bradley Smith]

Hi,

I'm just enquiring as to whether the AVR32 architecture has an official
elf machine number? I know currently 0x18ad is being used, but it seems
unlikely that this is an official number? If not, what are the chances of
getting this as the official number? Or would a new lower number need to
be obtained? Thanks.

Regards,
Bradley Smith

--
Bradley Smith br...@brad-smith.co.uk
Debian GNU/Linux Developer brad...@debian.org
GPG: 0xC718D347 D201 7274 2FE1 A92A C45C EFAB 8F70 629A C718 D347

[Dave Prosser]

Bradley Smith wrote:
> I'm just enquiring as to whether the AVR32 architecture has an official
> elf machine number? I know currently 0x18ad is being used, but it seems
> unlikely that this is an official number? If not, what are the chances of
> getting this as the official number? Or would a new lower number need to
> be obtained? Thanks.

There's an EM_AVR registered with (decimal) value 83
for the "Atmel AVR 8-bit microcontroller", but I doubt
it's the same as the AVR32 you're asking about.

Generally, when a new EM_* entry is registered, the
next value (most recent + 1) is assigned. Given that
all registered values are still below 200, I'd expect
that a new EM_AVR32 entry would be the same, and not
be (decimal) 6317.

Would you anticipate an issue with recompiling with
a different value than what you're currently using?

--
Dave Prosser d...@sco.com (973)261-1407 The SCO Group, Florham Park, NJ
SCO is a leading provider of UNIX-based solutions and mobile services.

[Bradley Smith]

On Wed, 06 May 2009 12:48:09 -0400
Dave Prosser <d...@sco.com> wrote:

> There's an EM_AVR registered with (decimal) value 83
> for the "Atmel AVR 8-bit microcontroller", but I doubt
> it's the same as the AVR32 you're asking about.

Yes, that is something else.

> Generally, when a new EM_* entry is registered, the
> next value (most recent + 1) is assigned. Given that
> all registered values are still below 200, I'd expect
> that a new EM_AVR32 entry would be the same, and not
> be (decimal) 6317.

This was my thinking also.

> Would you anticipate an issue with recompiling with
> a different value than what you're currently using?

For me, no, just a little extra work. (Coming from the point of view of a
glibc and debian port), but for Atmel I suspect this will cause a great
deal of problems. So I shall leave this with them.