Date:	Wed, 5 Jan 2000 11:07:15 +0200 (IST)
From:	Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
X-Sender:	eliz AT is
To:	Mumit Khan <khan AT xraylith DOT wisc DOT edu>
cc:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com
Subject:	Re: protoize for djgpp
In-Reply-To:	<84tu2h$b44$1@news.doit.wisc.edu>
Message-ID:	<Pine.SUN.3.91.1000105110147.7920W-100000@is>
MIME-Version:	1.0
Reply-To:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To:	listserv AT delorie DOT com

On 4 Jan 2000, Mumit Khan wrote:

> A Mingw user just asked me about protoize for Mingw, and turns out that
> it just doesn't work (mostly handling pathnames, and some text vs binary
> issues). He also mentioned that he'd originally tried djgpp and it 
> doesn't work there either, which makes sense now that I've taken a 
> closer look.

I once ported protoize (from GCC 2.6.x, I think) to DJGPP.  It was highly 
non-trivial.

Apart of the problems you mention, there are also issues with finding the 
system headers (to generate the syscalls.X file).  This required run-time 
computation of file names which the original source--traditionally--so
compiles into the binary as a fixed string.

> I have fixes against 2.95.2 that should make it work under DJGPP, but 
> it may require a few tweaks (such as __DJGPP__ in addition to whatever
> macros I'm using currently). Email if interested.

Thanks.  Please send the diffs to djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com.

Does the fixed version build out of the box if you add protoize to the 
list of languages when you build GCC?

- Raw text -