Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2001 18:50:50 +0300 (WET)
From: Andris Pavenis <pavenis AT lanet DOT lv>
To: Tim Van Holder <tim DOT van DOT holder AT pandora DOT be>
Cc: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com, lauras AT softhome DOT net
Subject: Re: gcc 3.0 released
In-Reply-To: <CAEGKOHJKAAFPKOCLHDIMEMECEAA.tim.van.holder@pandora.be>
Message-ID: <Pine.A41.4.05.10106251845280.53968-100000@ieva06.lanet.lv>
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 Mon, 25 Jun 2001, Tim Van Holder wrote:

> > We've been through that in the past: the problem with the linker script
> > is that, unlike specs, it is releated to both the compiler and to
> > Binutils.
> 
> I don't agree - linker scripts are only for the linker (ie binutils).  The
> djgpp.djl script was different, as it was tied to the DJGPP core (djdev),
> the compiler (though the specs file) and binutils (as it needed to evolve
> along with the builtin script).  Once that homegrown script is dropped,
> binutils becomes the sole owner of linker scripts.
> Even if a new compiler needs updated linker scripts, that support must be
> added to binutils, and it is the updated binutils that will bring the new
> scripts with it.  So linker scripts are only related to the compiler the
> same way any of the binutils are.
> For example, if gcc 3.1 for whatever reason needs linker script capabilities
> only provided by binutils 2.15, then our gcc 3.1 package, just like any
> other,
> would require binutils 2.15.
> 

I agree. It belongs to binutils and with time all other copies should die.
I suggested to put linker script (with different name, not
djgpp.djl) in gcc-3.0 DJGPP distribution for time while linker scripts in
binutils will be fixed. After that we'll be able to remove all
other copies of linker script except binutils one.

Andris