Date: Mon, 16 Jun 1997 11:20:24 +0200 (METDST)
From: Robert Hoehne <robert DOT hoehne AT mathematik DOT tu-chemnitz DOT de>
To: "Salvador Eduardo Tropea (SET)" <salvador AT inti DOT edu DOT ar>
Cc: DJGPP workers <djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com>
Subject: Re: Latest stub for binutils
In-Reply-To: <m0wcVKT-000S1kC@ciati.edu.ar>
Message-Id: <Pine.HPP.3.95q.970616110703.17368B-100000@newton.mathematik.tu-chemnitz.de>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, 13 Jun 1997, Salvador Eduardo Tropea (SET) wrote:

> We saw a lot of post in this thread but the main point wasn't exposed.
> Please Robert can you clarify why do you need to make fixed the size of the 
> stub? Is to simplify the code?

Yes. To make BFD to accept a variable length stub would need many many
changes in the code because it assumes mostly at any place a fixed
fileheder length.

> can't you create a library function that:

Maybe you have never looked at the BFD sources. They don't use
at all any DJGPP library function to read a DJGPP specific
object format (and this makes also no sense when building
cross development binutils).

And again. Can someone tell me a good reason why this should
be supported (the variable sub size) in binutils? This has
nothing to do with any limitation in DJGPP when loading
and running a DJGPP program (like in v2load).

> Perhaps that's impossible but if you don't put all clear ...

Of course it may be that I wasn't clear, but when I remember
correct the original post of this thread came from me to
discuss the things related only to the binutils and all the
other things in this thread about patches to the DJGPP related
stub handling can confuse this a little bit. So I have renamed
now the subject.

Robert