>>>> OK, am I just out of date or is there a real reason for linker
>>>> sets?This question just came up in linuxbios v3 and I am wondering if
>>>> I am a stubborn old coot (likely) or if there really is merit to my
>>>> dislike of linker sets.

>>>
>>> why can't both be true?
>>>

>>
>> I suspect both are true ...

>
> would i be rude to agree with you?
>

> OK, am I just out of date or is there a real reason for linker
> sets?

> but all the world uses GCC
> nowadays, so why bother with portability anymore?

>> but all the world uses GCC
>> nowadays, so why bother with portability anymore?

>
> and then when you look at compiling for particular platforms you get to ask
> "which gcc?" because code can be non-portable between them
> (for the same processor), and the options that work are different too. such fun.

> On Aug 1, 2008, at 11:37 AM, Steve Simon wrote:
>

>>> OK, am I just out of date or is there a real reason for linker
>>> sets?

>>
>> I see it this way:
>>
>> using linker sets means you have to learn and understand the linkers
>> language
>> to understand how the system is configured (when trying to track down
>> a problem)
>>
>> using a bit of script to generate some tables of C code you just need to
>> know C.
>>
>> This combined with the theroy that there is too much to learn and the
>> less new stuff
>> I need to learn to get a job done the better makes the choice easy
>> (IMHO). ...

>> OK, am I just out of date or is there a real reason for linker
>> sets?

>
> I see it this way:
>
> using linker sets means you have to learn and understand the linkers language
> to understand how the system is configured (when trying to track down a problem)
>
> using a bit of script to generate some tables of C code you just need to
> know C.
>
> This combined with the theroy that there is too much to learn and the less new stuff
> I need to learn to get a job done the better makes the choice easy (IMHO).