Subject: Re: full-feature libbfd
To: Todd Vierling <email@example.com>
From: Matt Thomas <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 07/15/2002 09:10:02
At 08:56 AM 7/15/2002, Todd Vierling wrote:
>On Wed, 19 Jun 2002 email@example.com wrote:
>: i'm wondering if it is a good idea to provide full-feature
>This support was speifically designed *out* of the new toolchain layout
>because we now have src/tools. The overhead of maintaining a unified libbfd
>(and the overhead of using it 8-) doesn't really outweigh simply making a
>src/tools toolchain for the target.
I disagree. If you are running a host which serves several architecures
a unified BFD is very useful.
>(Remember that we once had this support in the old src/gnu/dist layout, as a
>UNIFIED_BFD mk.conf option. Later discussion about the new world toolchain
>led to the decision to desupport this in favor of simply using src/tools.)
I believe you are wrong here. I seem to recall that we were first going to
get single architecture bfd working and then later on multi-architecure
bfd working. src/tools is completely independent of that.
Matt Thomas Internet: firstname.lastname@example.org
3am Software Foundry WWW URL: http://www.3am-software.com/bio/matt/
Cupertino, CA Disclaimer: I avow all knowledge of this message