Mail Archives: djgpp-workers/1997/08/15/09:55:37
> > > Is that
> > > correct? The reason I ask is that I have received bug reports regarding
> > > gxx from the latest pcg snapshots.
>
> ??? Does that mean you have a 'gxx.exe' in those snapshots? If so, it's
> probably a bad idea to include it at all. But I may be wrong here.
Yes. The new configure routines definitely create a g++. The only
advantage I can think of is that it doesn't require you to have gcc
on your system as well, since it duplicates the functionality. g++.c is
actually a symbolic link to gcc.c.
> This sure looks as if you actually use a gxx build by the gcc sources,
> i.e. the equivalent of the unix 'g++' binary. That's really not too
> good an idea, I suspect. The 'gxx' of DJGPP is a specialised product,
> and you shouldn't substitute the Unix-borne g++ for it.
Whether a good idea or not I already distributed it this way. Now I'm
just trying to figure out how to get things working again. I must say I
like not getting the 'linker file not used' warnings when using gxx -c.
Andrew
--
_______ ___________________________________________________________
/ Andrew Crabtree
/ Workgroup Networks Division
____ ___ / Hewlett-Packard
/ / / / Roseville, CA
__/ __/ _____/ 916/785-1675
/ andrewc AT rosemail DOT rose DOT hp DOT com
___________ __/ _____________________________________________________
- Raw text -