Mail Archives: djgpp-workers/2001/06/25/07:51:43
On Mon, 25 Jun 2001, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
>
> On Mon, 25 Jun 2001, Andris Pavenis wrote:
>
> > > We must have been talking about different solutions - as I see it, both
> > > updated djdev203.zip and new gcc30b.zip should provide the updated
> > > lib/djgpp.djl at the same location. This way it doesn't matter which file
> > > overwrites the other one. Does it sound better now?
> >
> > I suggested to temporary change name of linker script and supply the new
> > one with GCC-3.0. So I make sure the incompatible one from djdev203.zip
> > will never be used with these binaries of GCC-3.0. As result there is no
> > need to update djdev203.zip now and there will be no danger of unpacking
> > archives in wrong order.
>
> What happens if one of the next Binutils releases needs to change the
> script?
>
When it could happen? I think that not earlier than to next major
release of binutils but more probably even later. As it was mentioned
before next minor version of GCC is planed after slightly more than a
month. I don't think we'll have to do such changes up to that time.
The best would be to get rid of linker script in djdev20X.zip with time
and to have it in binutils only (in libs/ldscripts). To make such
transition more foolproof we should provide linker scripts in more than
one place before we can remove it from all places except binutils.
What I would like to see in future:
- making binutils builtin linker scripts compatible with
gcc-3.0 and earlier gcc versions
- After it will be so for time long enough we could remove
linker scripts from other places
Andris
- Raw text -