Date:	Mon, 25 Jun 2001 19:36:40 +0300 (IDT)
From:	Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
X-Sender:	eliz AT is
To:	Andris Pavenis <pavenis AT lanet DOT lv>
cc:	"Mark E." <snowball3 AT bigfoot DOT com>, djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Subject:	Re: gcc 3.0 released
In-Reply-To:	<Pine.A41.4.05.10106251716160.46808-100000@ieva06.lanet.lv>
Message-ID:	<Pine.SUN.3.91.1010625193140.4936G-100000@is>
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, Andris Pavenis wrote:

> One more problem is dxegen failure on gcc-3.0 compiled object files due to
> .comment section (it misinterprets it as unresolved reference). In last
> time I patched dxegen.c to workaround this problem (ignore .comment), but
> I'm almost sure Eli would not like such patch

I don't know why should I not like it.  What is the cleanest way to solve 
this?  Can dxegen do anything useful with these sections?  If it cannot, 
then ignoring them is an okay solution, IMHO.

> About Eli's initial question. How possible is some change in
> binutils that would make linker script from current djdev incompatible
> with binutils (I think it's unlikely ...) 

I don't know.  The fact is that this happened with GCC; it can happen 
again with Binutils.  I'd prefer that such problems could be detected 
during the development of each one of the packages (GCC and Binutils), 
and avoided by submitting appropriate patches into the mainstream 
sources.  But given the size and complexity of these packages and the 
scarcity of resources, I understand how hard it could be to find these 
problems in time.  So I guess a possibility that such problems are found 
late is something we will have to live with.

- Raw text -