Date: Mon, 2 Aug 1999 10:31:12 -0400
Message-Id: <199908021431.KAA01036@envy.delorie.com>
From: DJ Delorie <dj AT delorie DOT com>
To: eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il
CC: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
In-reply-to: <Pine.SUN.3.91.990801121833.20304n-100000@is> (message from Eli
	Zaretskii on Sun, 1 Aug 1999 12:19:09 +0300 (IDT))
Subject: Re: Changes in Binutils 2.9.1
References:  <Pine DOT SUN DOT 3 DOT 91 DOT 990801121833 DOT 20304n-100000 AT is>
Reply-To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To: listserv AT delorie DOT com
Precedence: bulk


> Does anybody see any problems with this?  How about cross-building:
> can we rely on `stubify' and `od' to be available then?

It would be best if it was autoconf detected.  If od and stubify were
available, it should enable extra makefile steps to regenerate the
stub pattern.

If stubify is available, would bin2h be available also?