Date: Sun, 07 Jan 2001 19:29:45 +0200
From: "Eli Zaretskii" <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
Sender: halo1 AT zahav DOT net DOT il
To: "Mark E." <snowball3 AT bigfoot DOT com>
Message-Id: <7458-Sun07Jan2001192945+0200-eliz@is.elta.co.il>
X-Mailer: Emacs 20.6 (via feedmail 8.3.emacs20_6 I) and Blat ver 1.8.6
CC: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
In-reply-to: <3A585ADA.250.321507@localhost> (snowball3@bigfoot.com)
Subject: Re: Backslashes in debug info
References: <Pine DOT SUN DOT 3 DOT 91 DOT 1010107134545 DOT 25836C-100000 AT is> <3A585ADA DOT 250 DOT 321507 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, 7 Jan 2001 12:02:34 -0500
> 
> > As you can see, truncation happens only with coff, and only with
> > the one from bnu210. So it's definitely an as problem; my guess
> > is that my as is/isn't a BFD assembler and bnu210's isn't/is.
> 
> Yours isn't BFD while the one in bnu210 is. It turns out that the BFD version 
> of as requires a #define to store long filenames (> 14 chars) while the non-
> BFD version supports it without need of a #define.

I understand that from now on, the BFD assembler is the default in the
DJGPP port of Binutils.

Mark, could you, or someone else, say a few words about the reasons of
the switch to the BFD assembler, and its advantages and disadvantages?
Should we consider having both in the binary distributions?