Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2000 09:44:00 +0300 (IDT)
From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
X-Sender: eliz AT is
To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Subject: Re: ANNOUNCE: Binutils 2.10 released
In-Reply-To: <Pine.A41.4.05.10006271703430.35992-100000@ieva06.lanet.lv>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.91.1000629094336.9718A-100000@is>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
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


On Tue, 27 Jun 2000, Andris Pavenis wrote:

> On Tue, 27 Jun 2000, Mark E. wrote:
> 
> > > If we are going to use '.section .text' in upcoming gcc version then I 
> > > think fix should be applied now. Otherwise I think it can wait next 
> > > release of binutils
> > > 
> > 
> > Yes it's used right now in gcc 2.96 so it will be used in the next version.
> > 
> > I'm guessing binutils 2.10.1 will released long before gcc 3.0, but then 
> > again I could be wrong. People who use gcc releases won't run into this bug, 
> > but then there are people like you testing gcc who need the fix. I could re-
> > release 2.10 and say that most folks need not bother downloading it 
> > again unless you experiment with gcc prereleases.
> > 
> 
> Main reason why I think it is best to fix such problems is that when
> '.section .text' will be generated by gcc-3.0 (or something similar)
> some users may still have binutils-2.10 installed. So if we update
> bnu210[bs].zip now we can make related problems less probable.

Can someone say a few words about the reason(s) for this .section
.text change in GCC, and its implications, besides the issue with
Binutils?