Date: Mon, 2 Aug 1999 13:06:11 +0300 (IDT)
From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
X-Sender: eliz AT is
To: Robert Hoehne <robert DOT hoehne AT gmx DOT net>
cc: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Subject: Re: Changes in Binutils 2.9.1
In-Reply-To: <199908011643.SAA01120@robby.dittmannsdorf.de>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.91.990802130417.4488A-100000@is>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
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


On Sun, 1 Aug 1999, Robert Hoehne wrote:

> This would also not solve the problem in general, since this implies,
> that you need to rebuild the binutils every time you change the stub.

Still, using the current stub when building Binutils seems like a
better approximation than using the one in the distribution, no?

> I think the safest is to use the feature of all binutils (since it is in
> BFD) to add a line in DJGPP.ENV like
> 
> GO32STUB=%DJDIR%/bin/stubify.exe

We could do both.

Does anybody have a problem with adding this now?  If not, I will
check this into CVS.

Robert, assuming that we include the above line in DJGPP.ENV, do you
think it would be better to take the stub from stubify than from the
copy inside the Binutils distribution, when building it?