Message-Id: <200006251520.SAA08256@alpha.netvision.net.il>
Date: Sun, 25 Jun 2000 18:22:12 +0200
To: snowball3 AT bigfoot DOT com
X-Mailer: Emacs 20.6 (via feedmail 8.2.emacs20_6 I) and Blat ver 1.8.5b
From: "Eli Zaretskii" <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
CC: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
In-reply-to: <3955D3F9.30965.D96D8@localhost> (snowball3@bigfoot.com)
Subject: Re: ANNOUNCE: Binutils 2.10 released
References: <200006241729 DOT NAA32173 AT delorie DOT com> <3955D3F9 DOT 30965 DOT D96D8 AT localhost>
Reply-To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Errors-To: nobody AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To: listserv AT delorie DOT com
Precedence: bulk

> From: "Mark E." <snowball3 AT bigfoot DOT com>
> Date: Sun, 25 Jun 2000 09:42:17 -0400
> 
> > It looks like future releases of GCC should put -mbnu210 into
> > lib/specs, no?
> 
> What do you have in mind? I think we should definitely tell people how to 
> make -mbnu210 the default using specs.

No, I thought that a future GCC distribution could come with specs
that already has -mbnu210 in it.  I don't think it's a good idea for
users to edit specs, I'm afraid they will screw it up.

> My plan (or hope) would be to someday get rid of the switch and just require 
> Binutils 2.10. When that day comes, perhaps we can also take stubify out of 
> the specs.

Does the Binutils build process take the latest stub as the one that
is hard-wired into the binaries?  Or does it still use the stale one
that is distributed with the sources?