From mint-bounce@lists.fishpool.fi Tue Feb 5 08:56:52 2008 Message-ID: <47A86A11.2070905@freesbee.fr> Date: Tue, 05 Feb 2008 14:52:17 +0100 From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Vincent_Rivi=E8re?= User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.9 (Windows/20071031) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: mint Subject: Re: [MiNT] strip References: <47A732CA.9000803@freesbee.fr> <47A85ECA.1040307@freesbee.fr> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: mint-bounce@lists.fishpool.fi Errors-to: mint-bounce@lists.fishpool.fi X-original-sender: vincent.riviere@freesbee.fr Precedence: bulk List-help: List-unsubscribe: List-Id: X-List-ID: List-subscribe: List-owner: List-post: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by mail.sparemint.org id m15DupnH028606 Frank Naumann a écrit : > My opinion: We stay for now with 2 byte alignment. If we switch to gcc > 4.2 wen can still go for a 4 byte alignment (and provide a binutils > package with 4 byte alignment too that stritcly require a gcc 4.2 > package and vice versa; that can be easily done with rpm). I agree with you. It is always better to not change everything at the same time. We may use that release plan: 1) Release binutils 2.18 with 2-byte alignement. It will be compatible with all the other tools an libraries. 2) Release gcc 4.x with 2-byte alignement. Until now it seems to be binary compatible with the existing binary libraries (but I'm pretty sure it is not the case for C++ libraries) 3) If we decide it is a good thing, release binutils and GCC with support for a more clever alignment. >> a.out-mint format (from the Sparemint binaries). The advantage of not >> using a.out-mint is to avoid unnecessary non-standard patching. > > I see this as advantage too. Less patches are much better. And if it's > exactly the same I see no reason to support our own format (this is a > waste of time). I'm going to have a closer look to that file formats. -- Vincent Rivière