Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2001 17:22:44 +0300 (WET)
From: Andris Pavenis <pavenis AT lanet DOT lv>
To: "Mark E." <snowball3 AT bigfoot DOT com>
Cc: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Subject: Re: gcc 3.0 released
In-Reply-To: <3B370911.17498.50DFA@localhost>
Message-ID: <Pine.A41.4.05.10106251716160.46808-100000@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, Mark E. wrote:

> > > That could be tomorrow, if Mark finds some grave reason to do so.
> > 
> > Most likely he will try to get binutils linker scripts to be compatible
> > with gcc-3.0. Of course we could ask him. 
> > 
> 
> I do plan to release binutils 2.11.2 to fix the two problems already reported 
>  (the debug symbol problem and dead link once section symbol removal). I want 
> to find out about about the other problem reported a few days ago with gpc 
> before releasing it though.
> 

One more problem is dxegen failure on gcc-3.0 compiled object files due to
.comment section (it misinterprets it as unresolved reference). In last
time I patched dxegen.c to workaround this problem (ignore .comment), but
I'm almost sure Eli would not like such patch

About Eli's initial question. How possible is some change in
binutils that would make linker script from current djdev incompatible
with binutils (I think it's unlikely ...) 

Andris