X-Authentication-Warning: delorie.com: mail set sender to djgpp-bounces using -f
X-Recipient: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
X-Original-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gnu.org;
	s=fencepost-gnu-org; h=References:Subject:In-Reply-To:To:From:Date:
	mime-version; bh=ICL/vHws0T4tPeEaQweRmxCpiTgqVW54LlFXwT9LfVE=; b=JXlGN8a85C4Z
	ifIh8Uu8d9I1WzqSbfxu/ctP6NS0inNYdYKzpmEaJX4nFjZGEYh8VUa7M3QR+/+EKAyYrtjFRWO5A
	br+3XI7xvUNrn7OAz7HEw7Wv3QPh9lcKm8YFObqlCDUWAGV3E4UPlHXmt+mSeWy8br9x+hsAv+XR9
	Y7VwQ/REr7fp/xwhRhlQRWcmw0/47xWRrNKgQt6ML/AY+iCTw0SCQRlTirlKz9WiKtujZ5x2HOt6A
	ktVLDjHX4DMhgE9FYKMa3bfCchm6OR80bZab9k+2H4lRm7/x/5WaQoLopb1nO2iBB429moC+umqqq
	J4TRFUPj2w0wZZ/9ZNKLDg==;
Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2023 14:38:14 +0200
Message-Id: <83o7qg5hah.fsf@gnu.org>
From: "Eli Zaretskii (eliz AT gnu DOT org) [via djgpp AT delorie DOT com]" <djgpp AT delorie DOT com>
To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
In-Reply-To:
	<CAA2C=vD5O16WsdfW9JqaDevTa2yqypD05fRFG+pW4T=3fq9SjA AT mail DOT gmail DOT com>
	(djgpp AT delorie DOT com)
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] dxe3gen: invoke ld/as via gcc
References: <d67303fd-c302-82cc-bb0d-d1a21640d66f AT gmail DOT com>
 <CAA2C=vDYkF13NYPP_EXGMwzrjhLj2vEq68+-uYPfZOXpqWVRfQ AT mail DOT gmail DOT com>
 <83r0vd78cu DOT fsf AT gnu DOT org> <CAA2C=vCCYsgtbQ5wsgbS3S4G7N+H5zi5DxCyVZLSkEKrSpifMw AT mail DOT gmail DOT com>
 <83o7qh74td DOT fsf AT gnu DOT org> <CAA2C=vDT10ZGfa3Mi2x0syvoT44Q3nfgcMfOwMZF=dM+ruL5OA AT mail DOT gmail DOT com>
 <b73813c5-0b91-6fa4-e4d2-55ddd97955a0 AT gmail DOT com> <CAA2C=vD5O16WsdfW9JqaDevTa2yqypD05fRFG+pW4T=3fq9SjA AT mail DOT gmail DOT com>
Reply-To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com

> From: "Ozkan Sezer (sezeroz AT gmail DOT com) [via djgpp AT delorie DOT com]" <djgpp AT delorie DOT com>
> Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2023 00:17:02 +0300
> 
> The only downside to your patch is that older gcc versions have a problem
> handling -T on their command line, which is why I had gone back.  I don't
> have a solution for that, buit I honestly haven't tried very much.
> 
> Eli, DJ: What do you guys think?

How serious is the issue with the linker script?  Is that a problem
only for GCC 2.95?  If so, I'm okay with using GCC and documenting
that 2.95 is no longer supported for this purpose.