This is the mail archive of the
gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: merge-with-binutils documentation is wrong/incomplete
- To: "Joseph S. Myers" <jsm28 at cam dot ac dot uk>
- Subject: Re: merge-with-binutils documentation is wrong/incomplete
- From: Philip Blundell <philb at gnu dot org>
- Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2001 10:11:41 +0000
- cc: Markus Werle <markus at lufmech dot rwth-aachen dot de>, Phil Edwards <pedwards at disaster dot jaj dot com>, gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu dot org
- References: <Pine.LNX.4.32.0103210942140.4933-100000@kern.srcf.societies.cam.ac.uk>
>I prefer (b) - that is, the interfaces to allow binutils to be built in a
>single tree should be documented (and I hope you'll be able to assist with
>this documentation), but if GCC starts linking against BFD (say) then it
>should use public interfaces to allow linking against any BFD in a given
>version range, either an installed BFD or a stable BFD release imported
The problems that people have building binutils and gcc in a single tree
almost never stem from issues related to binutils itself, but rather from the
fact that binutils and gcc have historically used slightly divergent versions
of `libiberty' and `include'. I think things are rather better in this
department than they used to be, and it will probably be easier to meld (say)
gcc 3.0 and binutils 2.11 into a single tree than it was for binutils 2.10.1
and gcc 2.95.3.
p.