Re: Absolute paths in BFD

[Ian Lance Taylor <ian at zembu dot com>]

   From: "Mark E." <snowball3@bigfoot.com>
   Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2000 19:13:21 -0400

   BTW, can anyone take a look at the patches below anytime soon? It has been 
   quite a while since the patches were posted and they are quite neccessary for 
   handling DOS-style filenames. 

   > A few months ago someone posted a series of patches to handle this very 
   > problem.  See:
   > 
   > http://sourceware.cygnus.com/ml/binutils/1999-q3/msg00584.html
   > http://sourceware.cygnus.com/ml/binutils/1999-q3/msg00585.html
   > http://sourceware.cygnus.com/ml/binutils/1999-q3/msg00586.html
   > http://sourceware.cygnus.com/ml/binutils/1999-q3/msg00587.html
   > http://sourceware.cygnus.com/ml/binutils/1999-q3/msg00588.html
   > http://sourceware.cygnus.com/ml/binutils/1999-q3/msg00589.html
   > http://sourceware.cygnus.com/ml/binutils/1999-q3/msg00590.html

I feel like I would rather copy the names that gcc uses:
IS_DIR_SEPARATOR, IS_PATH_SEPARATOR, HAVE_DOS_BASED_FILE_SYSTEM, etc.

In fact, I said that a long time ago:
    http://sourceware.cygnus.com/ml/binutils/1999-q3/msg00596.html

Testing something like DOSISH_FILENAMES in binutils/ar.c looks wrong.
DOSISH_FILENAMES is meaningful on the host, but binutils/ar.c deals
with files that are specific to the target.  However, maybe it's
right.  I'm not sure.

The changes to binutils/strings.c and gprof/gmon_io.h assume that any
system with O_BINARY has setmode and isatty, and I don't think that's
true.

Changes to libiberty should go through gcc.

Ian