Date: Wed, 21 Jan 1998 16:32:21 +0200 (IST)
From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
To: Hans-Bernhard Broeker <broeker AT physik DOT rwth-aachen DOT de>
cc: DJ Delorie <dj AT delorie DOT com>, robert DOT hoehne AT gmx DOT net,
        djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Subject: Re: gcc 2.8.0
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.3.93.980121150254.2863K-100000@acp3bf>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.91.980121162646.27975A-100000@is>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Precedence: bulk


On Wed, 21 Jan 1998, Hans-Bernhard Broeker wrote:

> On Wed, 21 Jan 1998, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> 
> > I think the issue of the stub coded inside Binutils vs the one in
> > `stubify' should be resolved, before we can really claim that core
> > DJGPP and GCC/Binutils are independent of each other.
> 
> In other words: we should add the relevant env. variable to the
> distributed djgpp.env, either in the general section, or in named sections
> for each of the binutils that may write .exe files (strip, objcopy, ld.
> any others?) 

I'm not sure this is good enough.  I would prefer a stub to be 
distributed as part of djdev and Binutils, to be unzipped into a standard 
place (like $DJDIR/lib or $DJDIR/share/stub), so that it will be found 
even without a new entry in DJGPP.ENV.

Or maybe we should make each utility use its own stub as the default one?

Also, Robert, do Binutils 2.7 support the environmen variable that points 
to the stub?