On Wed, Apr 21, 2010 at 7:49 PM, Jack Howarth <howa...@bromo.med.uc.edu> wrote: >> > Well your review does pretty much amount to "because darwin lacks >> > objdump like linux, the patch is rejected...". >> >> Stop that argument. You're fighting windmills.
I was referring to your repeated "gcc-is-linux-centric" accusation. It's untrue -- you may have noticed there are even people willing to work on supporting things on targets that they don't even own a computer for (hi!) -- and also quite annoying. As for the plugins working on Darwin: I was just surprised. I don't have an opinion about the patch itself, although it seems to me that if it's possible to use nm(1) on all targets it'd be a better choice than objdump since nm(1) is part of IEEE Std 1003.1-2008 and objdump is not. Ciao! Steven
