Hi, Keith !
Any reason this should feature should not be added into Binutils? It is basically necessary to build newer GCC natively, and I am guessing even with a Coldfire CPU (which will definitely need the newer dev tools) this will be needed.So, any possible problems seen with this?
I thunk a lot, I can't see any problem with that.As I said earlier, ld has the same option for building Cygwin binaries. I discovered recently in the GCC sources that this option is used to build Cygwin's GCC itself.
So the good thing to do is doing exactly the same for MiNT, so we will be able to build GCC on the MiNT host without dealing with the stack.
There is only a little detail that annoys me. On MiNT, we are used to use the "stack" program to set the stack. Obviously, the --stack option of ld have to take the same arguments, including suffixes (like 256K) ans special stack meanings (0, 1...). So the --stack option for the MiNT target will not have exactly the same meaning as the same one for the Cygwin target. But it is not actually a problem, because specific target options have not to be consistent.
The only other possible addition I see is maybe making it so strip does not remove the stack setting, or saves/restores it.
Of course ! I quickly provided a dirty patch to you for checking if the concept works as expected, and it worked fine since you were able to compile the full GCC with it. So I'm going to make a clean patch and integrate it in my latest binutils patch. There will not be any of the drawbacks you mentioned.
Any comments are welcome. -- Vincent Rivière