Re: Absolute paths in BFD

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

   From: "Mark E." <snowball3@bigfoot.com>
   Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2000 18:20:06 -0400

   > 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.

   Assuming this is correct, that means that in either configure or configure.in 
   at the top level needs to set a config.h variable based on the target which 
   could/would then let the macros for libiberty be set properly. Then replace 
   DOSISH_FILENAMES with HAVE_DOS_STYLE_FILE_SYSTEM to be like gcc. But before I 
   get too far with this, by 'target' I'm assuming your talking about a 
   configure script type of target and not a BFD type of target.

No, I meant a BFD type of target.  But I'm not really sure that is
right.  It's hard to know.  It might even depend upon the specific
operation in ar.

If I copy foo.a from an ELF system to DOS, and foo.a contains Bar.o,
and I do `ar r bar.o' should it replace Bar.o or not?  I'm not sure.

Ian