Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2001 21:35:22 -0400
Message-Id: <200108250135.VAA16071@envy.delorie.com>
X-Authentication-Warning: envy.delorie.com: dj set sender to dj AT envy DOT delorie DOT com using -f
From: DJ Delorie <dj AT delorie DOT com>
To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
In-reply-to: <4634-Fri24Aug2001204242+0300-eliz@is.elta.co.il>
Subject: Re: gcc-3.0.1 and Win2k
References: <Pine DOT A41 DOT 4 DOT 05 DOT 10108241840300 DOT 67980-100000 AT ieva06 DOT lanet DOT lv> <4634-Fri24Aug2001204242+0300-eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
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


> Fine with me, but the reason we use the script name is that we invoke
> the linker directly in some cases, not through GCC.  Does anyone
> remember why is this done, why don't we use GCC to link?  DJ?

I don't recall exactly, but it might be a combination of not trusting
gcc to use our newly created files (and nothing else) and perhaps gcc
not doing the right thing back then anyway.  IIRC, we've been
converting things to just using gcc directly as we trip over them.