X-Authentication-Warning:	delorie.com: mail set sender to djgpp-bounces using -f
X-Recipient:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com
X-Original-DKIM-Signature:	v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
	d=gmail.com; s=20120113;
	h=subject:to:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version
	:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding;
	bh=fERMY2vMfwM3vAzif4Pz0GuW/x4hygnpIyrtIhgm7to=;
	b=wheOR8cGcYE97Fl9VR+RCka9Uvz45Jiwm0z93okWqFrWuXvbKSu2zlsrWkeC691UfN
	IKq49NhuzWFP1SbphKRzMPJZXnXBHGocxEntS9zK5PSOAYYbiICiZAk9dr9CluIt18VZ
	+mi2GFHvNxUtJHuUEig4QEfQMr8Wdbee5Izt5f2aWod/6/XD8qk/lD5A2iMUpK9uUZeX
	oYBQJ2yJsH4qxwRu9VNNxVshu/FGIul9GPVmqmZcHKwNps0ZZ1X2v3M1HooSCd7KAJNX
	bm98JLZ4XQw62kozrCcRGJ7mECVC/3+CXPRzs2D8sgAyOdS0qQU0tpLghDF8ajQzhlno
	QQWA==
X-Received:	by 10.50.78.98 with SMTP id a2mr18929654igx.87.1443471864760;
	Mon, 28 Sep 2015 13:24:24 -0700 (PDT)
Subject:	Re: djgpp to Linux ARM cross binutils
To:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com
References:	<mu8em4$bas$1 AT usenet DOT news DOT interia DOT pl> <5607D4C3 DOT 4040800 AT gmx DOT de>
	<4b10ba83-055b-4ff9-bdd1-81b37c9aee36 AT googlegroups DOT com>
	<56083B83 DOT 6040707 AT iki DOT fi> <56086184 DOT 9070505 AT gmx DOT de>
	<muc36e$t1p$1 AT usenet DOT news DOT interia DOT pl>
	<0d606330-1db7-4f3f-ba6a-f711ab5960d5 AT googlegroups DOT com>
From:	"Frank Sapone (emoaddict15 AT gmail DOT com) [via djgpp AT delorie DOT com]" <djgpp AT delorie DOT com>
Message-ID:	<5609A1F7.6090201@gmail.com>
Date:	Mon, 28 Sep 2015 16:24:23 -0400
User-Agent:	Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101
	Thunderbird/38.2.0
MIME-Version:	1.0
In-Reply-To:	<0d606330-1db7-4f3f-ba6a-f711ab5960d5@googlegroups.com>
Reply-To:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com
Errors-To:	nobody AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To:	listserv AT delorie DOT com

> Well, this is the most important outcome of the experiment to me. ;-)
> It shows that it is possible build binutils from the distributed DJGPP port
> for other people than me.  Neither less it remains a fact that it is necessary
> to have some kind of Windows OS.  All my intents to use plain DOS (aka either
> DOS 7 from Win98SE or MSDOS 6.22 or FreeDOS) have miserably failed.  The worst
> seems to be FreeDOS but in the end they all fail and are useless.  Here a lot of work needs to be done if plain DOS shall still be of some use to compile contemporary GNU software.
I haven't tried compiling any of this stuff, but I can compile larger 
projects OK under DOS 7 but doslfn usually has to exist and you'll want 
your file handles to be set rather high (I usually set like FILES=100) 
for it to compile OK.

Frank

- Raw text -