> On Fri, 7 Jul 2000, Frank van der Linden wrote:
> 
> : Could you give an example of how binutils and gcc previously "worked
> : together", but how this won't work if you put gcc 2.95.x in there?
> : I would really prefer it if gcc 2.95.x is imported in a way consistent
> : with other GNU distributions.
> 
> The big problem is that binutils and gcc aren't maintained in a unified CVS
> tree, yet there are hooks to use binutils from within a gcc tree.  This
> requires that the opcodes, bfd, gas, and ld directories be moved into the
> gcc tree; the top level configure.in/config.guess be pulled from a single
> source; and that some libiberty discrepancies be addressed first.

I believe the libiberty in the gcc tree is regarded as the master and that 
other tools should be pulled from that (and that changes to any other copy 
must be propagated back to the master).  Of course, in the case of 
binutils 2.10 it will be using a copy of libiberty that is newer than that 
released with gcc 2.95.2, but unless the API's have changed incompatibly, 
it should be possible to use the latest one.

gas, ld and gdb now all share a single repository; so other than possible 
version skew on released versions, opcode and bfd should be largely in 
sync.

R.