From: "Tim Van Holder" <tim DOT van DOT holder AT pandora DOT be>
To: <djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com>
Cc: "Mark E." <snowball3 AT softhome DOT net>
Subject: RE: ANNOUNCE: Fileutils 4.0 beta 2
Date: Sat, 28 Apr 2001 18:33:40 +0200
Message-ID: <CAEGKOHJKAAFPKOCLHDIIEOECCAA.tim.van.holder@pandora.be>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0)
In-Reply-To: <3AEA0978.21519.38BEFF@localhost>
Importance: Normal
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400
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

> > (and I don't know if bfd has the needed hooks
> > for it at the moment).
> 
> I've already checked and it doesn't. bfd only supports fixed size file 
> headers and since the stub is part of the file header it does mean that 
> only fixed size stubs are supported.
Is this a hard requirement, or are the BFD developers willing to look
into supporting variable-sized headers?
I expect this would come in handy in other circumstances as well. Having
seperate 'architectures' for each type of DJGPP header would probably be
an OK stop-gap measure, but it's hardly ideal.