Date: Mon, 14 Oct 1996 12:34:39 +0200 (METDST)
From: Robert Hoehne <robert DOT hoehne AT mathematik DOT tu-chemnitz DOT de>
To: "John M. Aldrich" <fighteer AT cs DOT com>
Cc: Robert Hoehne <robert DOT hoehne AT mathematik DOT tu-chemnitz DOT de>,
        Bill Currie <billc AT blackmagic DOT tait DOT co DOT nz>, djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Subject: Re: Linker script (Was Re: binutils 2.7 questions)
In-Reply-To: <325F0F5D.627@cs.com>
Message-Id: <Pine.HPP.3.91.961014122500.21796B-100000@newton.mathematik.tu-chemnitz.de>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII

On Fri, 11 Oct 1996, John M. Aldrich wrote:

> I assume this is the name of the new linker script file.  :)
Yes.

> The problem here is that you'd have to completely rewrite stubify to use
> a user-defined stub.  As it stands, the way the stub is hardcoded into
> stubify makes it very difficult to change.  Besides, what exactly are
I see there no big problem (look at the binutils sources, how I did
it there).

> the advantages of using a different stub program anyway?  There should
> be no need for it unless you are writing a specialized program like
> djverify, and for that it's easier to rebuild stubify anyway.

Now we coming to the right question. All the discussion is about a
specialized program and I see no reason to change the common
usage for such programs. 

>>    objcopy .....
[snip]
> Is this a workable solution?  I thought that stubify existed for a

No, it's not. But for a single program you can use it.

Robert