Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2001 21:38:35 +0300
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-Mon25Jun2001213835+0300-eliz@is.elta.co.il>
X-Mailer: Emacs 20.6 (via feedmail 8.3.emacs20_6 I) and Blat ver 1.8.9
CC: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
In-reply-to: <3B373C35.10153.49AF6E@localhost> (snowball3@bigfoot.com)
Subject: Re: gcc 3.0 released
References: <CAEGKOHJKAAFPKOCLHDIMEMECEAA DOT tim DOT van DOT holder AT pandora DOT be> <3B373C35 DOT 10153 DOT 49AF6E 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: Mon, 25 Jun 2001 13:27:17 -0400
> 
> > Then please explain how come we now need to change it because of a new 
> > version of GCC.
> 
> Because the gcc 3.0 port has been configured to take advantage of advanced 
> features.

Exactly my point: the tight coupling between the compiler and Binutils
means that the linker script is relevant not only for Binutils, but
also for the compiler, even though the compiler never reads it.

So it is quite possible that changes in the compiler will require
changes in the linker script, even though Binutils didn't change.