Mail Archives: djgpp/2002/12/10/06:45:11
Ed Manlove <emanlove AT ieee DOT org> wrote:
> It sounds as if you are suggesting using the GNU gcc source code and not
> what I call the DJGPP gcc source code.
Not really. What I wanted to suggest is that you'll have to go even
further, making additional modifications to the sources, similar to
those that take the GNU version to the DJGPP version. You need sort
of an "even more DJGPP" gcc source tree. The underlying issue being
that I don't think those parts of the source tree not used as part of
a native build are likely to have been adapted to DJGPP, ever. So
you'll have to do that.
I haven't looked at the way the DJGPP source code is currently distributed,
but at least at some point, you had three possibilities:
1) get only those sources needed to build the DJGPP native toolchain
2) get the full sources, already modified so the DJGPP native build works
3) get the original GNU sources, and a set of patch files and instructions
that will turn them into the DJGPP version
You'll almost certainly have to inspect those patches used in variant 3)
closely, and carefully check if any similar modifications are necessary in
those parts of the build process that the native build doesn't use.
If all else fails, you may even have to consider a "canadian cross"
build, ie. build GCC on Linux or wherever, with DJGPP as the host
system and your actual target platform as the target.
> use the DJGPP source code. I am really hoping to use this code branch. And
> configure/build instructions are fairly similar.
"Fairly similar" is not enough. Every tiny difference is there for a
reason, which you will have to understand and possibly extrapolate
into new, as yet unused areas of the code tree.
Either way, it's not the "instructions" that you'll have to check as
much as the actual scripts ('configure', and whatever others it calls)
and configuration files.
--
Hans-Bernhard Broeker (broeker AT physik DOT rwth-aachen DOT de)
Even if all the snow were burnt, ashes would remain.
- Raw text -