From: sandmann AT clio DOT rice DOT edu (Charles Sandmann)
Message-Id: <10301220400.AA13981@clio.rice.edu>
Subject: Re: stubify calling stubedit
To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Date: Tue, 21 Jan 2003 22:00:18 -0600 (CST)
In-Reply-To: <200301212129.h0LLTfF25178@speedy.ludd.luth.se> from "ams@ludd.luth.se" at Jan 21, 2003 10:29:41 PM
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.5 PL2]
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
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

> Here's the promised patch to stubify to be able to set stub options by
> calling stubedit.

Please update src/stub/stubdocs.txi with the new option :-)

> You might have opinions on the "=" in"-stubparams=". 
> stubparams=minstack=2000m" might look strange.

I think it's fine (I've seen similar syntax on other programs, or
worse - such as /select=size=min=500).

I've got mixed feelings about stubify calling stubedit.  Since we
are writing the stub it seems backwards to write it, then spawn 
another program to modify what we just wrote.  It would be much
nicer to modify the in memory copy of the stub before we wrote
it to the new file.  However, I guess this will be done very 
infrequently, so optimizing it isn't worth a lot of effort.  
If we start using this option frequently (like every link) 
I would prefer to restructure the routines which modify the 
stubinfo block into a common module and call it both places.

So, OK with a minor grumble...