Subject:	Re: gcc 3.0 released
From:	Tim Van Holder <tim DOT van DOT holder AT pandora DOT be>
To:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
In-Reply-To:	<1858-Fri22Jun2001152251+0300-eliz@is.elta.co.il>
References:
	<Pine DOT A41 DOT 4 DOT 05 DOT 10106220819220 DOT 51584-100000 AT ieva06 DOT lanet DOT lv> (message from
	Andris Pavenis on Fri, 22 Jun 2001 08:25:34 +0300 (WET))
	<3B334F21 DOT 5415 DOT EB76DE AT localhost>
	<1858-Fri22Jun2001152251+0300-eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
X-Mailer:	Evolution/0.10.99 (Preview Release)
Date:	22 Jun 2001 15:00:55 +0200
Message-Id:	<993214856.8796.0.camel@bender.falconsoft.be>
Mime-Version:	1.0
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

On 22 Jun 2001 15:22:51 +0300, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> > From: pavenis AT lanet DOT lv
> > Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2001 13:58:57 +0300
> > 
> > I'm sure having 2 incompatible files with the same name is 
> > going to cause more problems rather than temporary changing the 
> > name
> 
> I don't agree with this assessment of the relative dangers in the two
> alternatives.
> 
> > What I suggesting is to temporary use linker script with a slightly 
> > different name before djdev204.zip will be released
> 
> How is this different from uploading a fixed djdev203.zip now?

Isn't it about time we just dropped djgpp.djl altogether?
binutils has a perfectly fine linker script for djgpp built-in; so
couldn't we just require a recent binutils and be done with it?
For those people who want to customize things, that still possible
(provided ld is configured to get scripts from the filesystem, as I
believe that's not done by default).

--
Tim Van Holder - Anubex N.V.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
This message was posted using plain text. I do not endorse any
products or services that may be hyperlinked to this message.

- Raw text -