Date:	Fri, 20 Jun 1997 14:54:51 +0200 (MET DST)
From:	Hans-Bernhard Broeker <broeker AT physik DOT rwth-aachen DOT de>
Subject:	Library rebuilds (was Re: Possible misbehavior of write)
In-reply-to:	<9706200301.AA13408@clio.rice.edu>
To:	Charles Sandmann <sandmann AT clio DOT rice DOT edu>
Cc:	DJ Delorie <dj AT delorie DOT com>, djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Message-id:	<Pine.LNX.3.91.970620143957.7596A-100000@acp3bf>
MIME-version:	1.0

On Thu, 19 Jun 1997, Charles Sandmann wrote:

> > The only hastle I can see is the need to distribute multiple libraries
> > or answere a lot of question relating to code size/how to get debug code etc.
> 
> I would not distribute multiple libraries.  As DJ pointed out, we've gone
> a couple of years now before this came up, so it can't be too important...
> If someone needs it, recompile the library.  My 2 cents...

Well, but *if* we're ever going to tell 'Joe Average Programmer' that he
should recompile the library, then there's at least one other thing that
needs to be done before: (re)organize the building process of the library
such that it actually builds 'out of the box'. 

I, for one, had quite a bit of trouble, writing additional batch files,
and so on. One point that bugged me most: I had to call 'makeall.bat'
*four* times in a row to build the library from scratch (i.e. even the
fourth compile still found a reason to recompile something...). 

OTOH, I did do something 'unusual': I wanted to compile that code on
another disk (with smaller cluster size, and a bit more free space), i.e.
not from inside the DJGPP directory. I ended up copying the complete
include and lib directories to the build location. Not too nice. 

I do understand that rebuilding all of the library is actually not meant
to be an easy task (I seem to remember DJ having answered "don't expect it
to be easy" to such a question sometime). But I don't think that can stay
that way if we actually start telling people 'to get this feature,
recompile the library with -DDEBUGPOINTERS'. 

HBB

- Raw text -