Working ELF GCC

Tony van der Hoff tony at mk-net.demon.co.uk
Mon Oct 6 01:14:12 PDT 2003


On 5 Oct 2003, in message <2225c03c4c.peter at chocky.org>,
Peter Naulls <peter at chocky.org> wrote:

> 
> See: http://www.drobe.co.uk/riscos/artifact834.html
> And: http://www.riscos.info/gcc/32bit.html
> 
> Don't forget to read the notes.
> 
> Although there are obvious short term problems, this proves the
> concept, and I suggest we move all GCCSDK development to ELF based ASAP
> - especially since we aren't currently looking at any kind of release
> for GCC 3.3.
> 
> If nothing else, it will avoid the current problems with the linker in
> current CVS that cause compiles to fail, and misc other linker issues
> that we've had recently.
> 
> Comments?
> 
> 
Are you suggesting that in the future ALF will no longer be supported? 

This would be a problem for those, who like me, build link libraries (i.e.
OSLib) under Linux, but with the intention that it will be linked under RISC
OS, together with ALF objects, using some undefined linker.

I'm probably worrying unduly, as the same argument would apply to UnixLib.
However, in that case, I've lost the plot somewhere. What precisely, if any,
is the impact of this proposal?

Cheers, Tony

-- 
Tony van der Hoff         | MailTo:tony at mk-net.demon.co.uk
Buckinghamshire, England  | http:www.mk-net.demon.co.uk




More information about the gcc mailing list