From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Date: Tue,  6 Jan 2009 14:47:19 -0800
From: "Roman V. Shaposhnik" <rvs@sun.com>
In-reply-to: <2fc401599e85863b21a812d333614fd4@quanstro.net>
To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs <9fans@9fans.net>
Message-id: <1231282039.5141.53.camel@goose.sun.com>
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
References: <2fc401599e85863b21a812d333614fd4@quanstro.net>
Cc: lucio@proxima.alt.za
Subject: Re: [9fans] Format for relocatable objects
Topicbox-Message-UUID: 7afa7876-ead4-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025


On Tue, 2009-01-06 at 15:09 -0500, erik quanstrom wrote:
> > It would be a shame (but no disaster) if Binutil's "nm" and other
> > tools could not at least display native Plan 9 intermediate files.  I
> > need to know or decide how far to take this exercise.
>
> why would that be advantagous on plan 9?  if you teach
> gcc to output, e.g., 8.out, then what is gained by having
> gnu binutils version of nm?

Not *on* Plan9, but *for* Plan9: think cross-environment.

Thanks,
Roman.