Mail Archives: djgpp-workers/2001/06/25/12:30:04
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).
Then please explain how come we now need to change it because of a new
version of GCC.
> 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.
Yes, if GCC, Binutils, and djdev were all released together, like it was
in the old days when DJ was doing it all single-handedly, then everybody
would be happy, and, in fact, it would have been immaterial which one of
these packages comes with the linker script.
But that's not how these packages are released. And I don't think we
should assume that every new release of the compiler will be accompanied
by new Binutils. I don't think we can rely on that, as long as different
people maintain these ports.
> 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.
Such calamities is something we should IMHO try to prevent. It is
unrealistic to expect that these two packages are always released in
perfect sync.
- Raw text -