[MiNT] Binutils FIXED!

[Mark Duckworth <mduckworth@atari-source.com>]

Hey guys,

I've gotten to the bottom of every binutils issue.  To start, there was
no bug in nm, the symbol tables were corrupt with the s/rawsize/size/g
patch.  This is incorrect.  rawsize was initialized and set, and is
right, however the "sanity check" portion must then be commented out as
it makes no sense at all.  It compares an address to a size (like in
bytes).  If you comment this out, the compiled code is quite correct.
Once things are changed back to rawsize as in the original binutils
patch things are quite correct.

As far as the memory allocation issue was concerned, it was as was
expected, my code was allocating ST-ram.  This seems a little
counterintuitive though.  If MiNT runs out of ST-ram, the program should
attempt to use fast ram or vice versa I think, or there should be a flag
that says you can do this.

The new binutils is not setting flags properly.  Binaries from old
binutils resulted in flags: Current flags: 0x00000007.
Binaries from the new binutils resulted in flags 0x00000000.

The current behavior of the flags tool is either incorrect or
misunderstood by me.

There are two flags, fast ram and fast alloc.  Setting fast-ram without
fast alloc causes the resulting binary to continue to use ST-ram anyway.
This is not immediately obvious at all.  Maybe the dev who knows the
inner workings of the ram knows that you must have fast alloc in order
to use fast ram, but I didn't, thus when you set fast ram, it should
pull in fast alloc automatically IMHO.

So to summarize, the problem with binutils was that flags were nnot
being set to matching binutils 2.13.  They need to be fast ram, fast
alloc, fast load, and protected mem by default, and they're not for some
reason (yet...  I'll fix that!).  And the rawsize to size change was
completely misguided and incorrect.  Once I get it all fixed up, I'll
compile a new rpm and distribute it.  This time I'm going to test it
pretty hard though so what is released should be considered correct.

Thanks,
Mark