X-Sent:	29 Jun 2001 04:00:05 GMT
Message-ID:	<008301c10050$1a8e4680$e33e1d18@nycap.rr.com>
From:	"Matthew Conte" <matt AT conte DOT com>
To:	<djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com>
References:	<Pine DOT A41 DOT 4 DOT 05 DOT 10106282130400 DOT 25830-100000 AT ieva06 DOT lanet DOT lv>
Subject:	Re: gcc 3.0 released
Date:	Fri, 29 Jun 2001 00:00:56 -0400
MIME-Version:	1.0
X-Priority:	3
X-MSMail-Priority:	Normal
X-Mailer:	Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2479.0006
X-MimeOLE:	Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2479.0006
Reply-To:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com

From: "Andris Pavenis" <pavenis AT lanet DOT lv>

> > maybe i'm missing the bus on this one, but shouldn't the linker script
be
> > built-in, anyway?  at least it is on the other main GNU toolchain i am
using
> > right now (arm-elf).
>
> It should of course. But DJGPP releases of binutils still didn't have
> needed features. So I suggested a way out as a temporary workaround

i don't see what the problem is, then...  using a built-in version of the
linker script avoids having to deal with $(DJGPP)/lib/djgpp.djl altogether,
thus avoiding mutually exclusive binary packages from overwriting each
other's version of the file.  building the default linkscript into the
target's ld avoids all of these problems, does it not?

regards,
matthew.

- Raw text -