From: "Mark E." <snowball3 AT bigfoot DOT com>
To: "Eli Zaretskii" <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>, djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Date: Sun, 25 Jun 2000 12:48:57 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Subject: Re: ANNOUNCE: Binutils 2.10 released
Message-ID: <3955FFB9.7993.18D180@localhost>
In-reply-to: <200006251520.SAA08256@alpha.netvision.net.il>
References: <3955D3F9 DOT 30965 DOT D96D8 AT localhost> (snowball3 AT bigfoot DOT com)
X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.12c)
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

> 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.

What I don't understand is why include -mbnu210 in 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?

The stub in the sources hasn't been updated. I'll post a patch to fix this 
(assuming the hex stub in djgpp/src/stub/stub.h is ok to copy over and diff 
against). However, DJGPP 2.03 defines GO32STUB and it tells binutils to get 
the stub from stubify.exe. 

Mark