From:	pavenis AT lanet DOT lv
Message-ID:	<B0000099030@stargate.astr.lu.lv>
To:	"Mark E." <snowball3 AT bigfoot DOT com>, djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Date:	Mon, 23 Aug 1999 17:09:54 +0300
MIME-Version:	1.0
Subject:	Re: gcc flag for binutils 2.10?
In-reply-to:	<199908221452.OAA20688@out2.ibm.net>
X-mailer:	Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.12a)
Reply-To:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To:	listserv AT delorie DOT com

On 22 Aug 99, at 10:52, Mark E. wrote:

> I've been thinking about a way for allow the next version of GCC to take advantage 
> of the new features in Binutils, at least for the benefit of C++ users. One way 
> would be to just require Binutils 2.10, but we can't require what isn't released. An 
> alternative is to add a target specific switch to GCC to allow those with pre-
> release versions of Binutils use of the advanced features.
> 
> Here's what I have in mind:
> 
> #define SUBTARGET_SWITCHES 		\
>   { "bnu210", MASK_BNU210, "Enable weak symbols and .gnu.linkonce (requires Binutils 
> 2.10)." }, \
>   { "no-bnu210", -MASK_BNU210, "Disable weak symbols and .gnu.linkonce." },

At least I didn't find MASK _BNU210 in GCC-2.95.1 sources.

> This means that -mbnu210 would enable weak symbols and for templates to use 
> .gnu.linkonce sections. -mno-bnu210 would disable these features if you had them 
> already enabled (by changing the specs for example).
> 
> The only drawback is you must use the switch with every source file so you don't get 
> mysterious errors. However, this shouldn't be a problem if you're using RHIDE or a 
> Makefile.

Andris

- Raw text -