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; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gnu.org;
	s=fencepost-gnu-org; h=References:Subject:In-Reply-To:To:From:Date:
	mime-version; bh=hyu2dXctFp219TJwGyubnHGxuAzyWNSKz7AKRV/YEh8=; b=baGt1zND9X8g
	db5rgx112dhDPXPKDnFv4yw6tVTAX82rCoHt+dLhsLSDuAnVE60U/iBbOpb3+aLiyZJIfit0rMcot
	Z7ol5c1Cq6ShRnZ2l6rVg4GZRaIn4djLc/1HjgIMXDvjf8nCWDjJXMxha5X5v6ImbIOf/FWBbBMrM
	0bKDC8uhDrP5WKJc+jP3P3QXG/lpbS5iadhW+mOqvQCwtuNvyfXty4KUndlivBhQvpjTNkxyI3kQa
	9D4vIPijm0zDPiX5ZnuMN7uUaEEVhb6+0l8I0vo/Rf+8nbNiPI+45u/szJC7ZqiD+l83/RubKYeAB
	agbRbWymEB7NdRgxjrmrVQ==;
Date:	Sat, 28 Jan 2023 14:44:27 +0200
Message-Id:	<83lelmakwk.fsf@gnu.org>
From:	"Eli Zaretskii (eliz AT gnu DOT org) [via djgpp AT delorie DOT com]" <djgpp AT delorie DOT com>
To:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com
In-Reply-To:
	<CAA2C=vCWL4XJaXstSouW5uUdQt2nyX6jTGxBH+Z6cX+=Te4F5Q AT mail DOT gmail DOT com>
	(djgpp AT delorie DOT com)
Subject:	Re: DXE3 with std::vector
References:	<edefcfee-d1ce-415a-8d1d-525a660fb0d5n AT googlegroups DOT com>
	<CAA2C=vCduRPA7Ky-kDqs=QtO-qi=DQczM6FMHhB+=Ltof54P=Q AT mail DOT gmail DOT com>
	<c934abb6-c11e-0087-cd32-365d25d3f154 AT gmail DOT com> <CAA2C=vCHMXDD8iewRStieHyTcgjGF3=d29LmMT53vrzGYe+zMQ AT mail DOT gmail DOT com>
	<CACuL_+CZm++qhEr7PedDmQaTxjZu9d-rVSw1bgPeist7XZ+dpQ AT mail DOT gmail DOT com>
	<CAA2C=vDPwv5G9DeFKyKFqt39cDDmO4LmDtbtMyoMdRR2xeEkow AT mail DOT gmail DOT com>
	<3b8f674c-bca3-c679-952e-f8ba5af196e7 AT gmail DOT com> <CAA2C=vBptnTAy2TA-pj5JCbAUJMiXkAAoP_xYFZZJ99iB7v9mQ AT mail DOT gmail DOT com>
	<500850be-fd64-3f82-a1e1-929903084e9b AT gmail DOT com> <CAA2C=vA0zXX3Sb49WBzU5g1-8dmO5G5wrb3uT+tLRq2LB0wu5Q AT mail DOT gmail DOT com>
	<3d9271ae-266d-ee7b-853b-984857ced1c8 AT gmail DOT com> <CAA2C=vD6sZpTicPh0xuJ16r76qBZ5BZro6x=9+=Z+P-0f_eRSA AT mail DOT gmail DOT com>
	<f04cd9db-fe76-219c-bacb-47711df559e2 AT gmail DOT com> <CAA2C=vCv_bpM+iinTcreMJD_gv34Rna3jLspiLFfESFuNxOtoA AT mail DOT gmail DOT com>
	<af7fa08a-b074-0a4c-5e2f-99299940e3cc AT gmail DOT com> <CAA2C=vB22rof4HPV_dVPy4tVmsmeDMy4G4r2Vx-_YLwOW6C9ug AT mail DOT gmail DOT com>
	<bbdf1853-5454-93b2-fcf9-2306c6949c86 AT gmail DOT com> <CAA2C=vBDi8gwhVVacnhnP+eufCkMNK4DancpOjnD7ScOWCEF6g AT mail DOT gmail DOT com>
	<83sffvbux1 DOT fsf AT gnu DOT org> <CAA2C=vAuq+O2gRRM--E0YAPy6D1pLgcP2r0-4+sCLis=kwGYzA AT mail DOT gmail DOT com>
	<83mt63azwi DOT fsf AT gnu DOT org> <CAA2C=vByQZVnfkF_0UX+4p+rcm8uTehwSnM9hSHW-m=Dc4HBtw AT mail DOT gmail DOT com>
	<835ycravjo DOT fsf AT gnu DOT org> <CAA2C=vCauV7VviJ2L+us_4KOgH8TYgEkVtn17hyBxDH5YuddRA AT mail DOT gmail DOT com>
	<83zga39fil DOT fsf AT gnu DOT org> <CAA2C=vCPF_OJkxGxqhQNue0K4j0WQ302GdYSncQydM_EN2kjuA AT mail DOT gmail DOT com>
	<83v8kr9bye DOT fsf AT gnu DOT org> <CAA2C=vCWL4XJaXstSouW5uUdQt2nyX6jTGxBH+Z6cX+=Te4F5Q AT mail DOT gmail DOT com>
Reply-To:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com

> From: "Ozkan Sezer (sezeroz AT gmail DOT com) [via djgpp AT delorie DOT com]" <djgpp AT delorie DOT com>
> Date: Sat, 28 Jan 2023 14:39:17 +0300
> 
> > Note that additional "-Tdjgpp-x.djl" at the end which screws up everything.
> >
> > What if you use both -T and -Xlinker -T?  IOW, pass -T both to GCC and
> > to the linker directly?
> 
> That works with gcc-3.4.6, but not with gcc-2.95: adding -v to command line
> shows that gcc295 invokes ld with -Tdjgpp.djl -T dxe.ld
> 
> > If this still doesn't work, can you show the output of "gcc -dumpspecs"
> > from GCC 2.95?
> 
> Attached as 295SPECS.TXT  [EDIT: really attached it this time.]

OK, I see the problem now.  So this means people who use GCC 2.95 will
have to use the previous version of dxe3gen.  In that case, I think
I'm okay with documenting this and ignoring the problem with GCC 2.95.

> >>> OK, but still: there should be no problem with having both on the
> >>> command line, right?
> >>
> >> No, no problems. But detecting and correctly using -lgcc was the
> >> original goal.
> >
> > But -L doesn't contradict that goal, does it?
> 
> I'm trying to understand your question and how you see things:
> What I'm saying is, needing to add an additional -L/some/path for
> -lgcc is really counter-intuitive and unexpected. I guess someone
> has to run gcc -print-libgcc-file-name to manually detect it and
> than add it to his own command line.

Sure, but we are already talking about someone who does something very
non-standard.  I just prefer that we leave those hypothetical people a
way of keeping their setups, whatever they are, and I think supporting
DJDIR and DXE_LD_LIBRARY_PATH for adding -L options to the command
line cannot do any harm to people who use the standard directories,
right?

- Raw text -