From owner-freebsd-hackers  Sat Apr  6 15:32:09 1996
Return-Path: owner-hackers
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) id PAA22061
          for hackers-outgoing; Sat, 6 Apr 1996 15:32:09 -0800 (PST)
Received: from rover.village.org (rover.village.org [204.144.255.49])
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) with SMTP id PAA22016
          for <hackers@FreeBSD.ORG>; Sat, 6 Apr 1996 15:31:46 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by rover.village.org (8.6.12/8.6.6) with SMTP id QAA26137; Sat, 6 Apr 1996 16:29:05 -0700
Message-Id: <199604062329.QAA26137@rover.village.org>
To: Robert Withrow <witr@rwwa.com>
Subject: Re: GNU binutils port 
Cc: hackers@FreeBSD.ORG
In-reply-to: Your message of Sat, 06 Apr 1996 14:26:01 EST
Date: Sat, 06 Apr 1996 16:29:05 -0700
From: Warner Losh <imp@village.org>
Sender: owner-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

: Out of curiosity, why is that (both of thats that is... ;-)

Because binutils doesn't support FreeBSD's shared libraries.  Also,
gcc is bundled with FreeBSD, so there is no need to have it as a port.

Actually, binutils compiles great on FreeBSD if you are using it as a
cross compiler to another, supported platform. :-(.

All of this stems from the fact that ld in FreeBSD is a binutils 1.x
era ld and the needed functionality would be, ahhh, non-trivial to
bring forward into the 2.x line.

There is some noise about ELF fixing all of this, but I'm not sure how
much of that is GEE WIZZ stuff, and how much is production quality
hardened code.  With ELF, it would be very easy to use the latest
binutils 2.1.  In fact, there is a ELF link kit for people that are
running -current that want to play around with this stuff, but memory
escapes me at the moment...

Warner