Date:	Mon, 25 Jun 2001 15:21:51 +0300 (WET)
From:	Andris Pavenis <pavenis AT lanet DOT lv>
To:	Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
Cc:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Subject:	Re: gcc 3.0 released
In-Reply-To:	<Pine.SUN.3.91.1010625150707.2920D-100000@is>
Message-ID:	<Pine.A41.4.05.10106251501450.20260-100000@ieva06.lanet.lv>
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 Mon, 25 Jun 2001, Eli Zaretskii wrote:

> > When it could happen? I think that not earlier than to next major
> > release of binutils but more probably even later.
> 
> That could be tomorrow, if Mark finds some grave reason to do so.

Most likely he will try to get binutils linker scripts to be compatible
with gcc-3.0. Of course we could ask him. 

> 
> > 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).
> 
> We've been through that in the past: the problem with the linker script 
> is that, unlike specs, it is releated to both the compiler and to 
> Binutils.  So putting it in either of these two packages has downsides 
> when the other package needs a change in the script, for some reason.
> 
> Of course, leaving the script in djdev doesn't solve this problem, but at 
> least it doesn't change the packaging everybody is used to.  I think such 
> changes are only justified when they solve problems in some fundamental 
> ways, because packaging changes have their own downsides (people leave 
> old files lurking around and waiting to bite them).

The renaming this file was intended to avoid problems with such old
lurking files. They will be silently ignored without any harm (unless user
explicitly messes with linker script) as GCC will look for file with
different name we never used earlier. 

Andris

- Raw text -