From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Message-ID: <2fc401599e85863b21a812d333614fd4@quanstro.net>
To: lucio@proxima.alt.za, 9fans@9fans.net
From: erik quanstrom <quanstro@quanstro.net>
Date: Tue,  6 Jan 2009 15:09:09 -0500
In-Reply-To: <6b0f1fed7f15c8b2e72ad8370f87c09f@proxima.alt.za>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [9fans] Format for relocatable objects
Topicbox-Message-UUID: 7ad7d596-ead4-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025

> 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?

- erik