On Wednesday 28 February 2007 04:44, Dan Nicholson wrote: > For this case, it looks like there's a couple different ways we can > attack this. But I think we agree that this is a good thing to do. > Let's give Matthew and anyone else to chime in.
I'd say go with the '-B' switch too. It's being used for its intended purpose, and the 'non-executable ld' trick won't work as Bryan pointed out. [0] suggests it'll work on gcc-2.95.3 hosts too, so we won't be introducing any new host requirements either. Regards, Matt. [0] http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc-2.95.3/gcc_2.html#SEC14 > > -- > Dan -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
