Mail Archives: djgpp-workers/1997/08/15/10:02:44
Hello, Andrew, and everyone
> > ??? 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.
Of course, but it breaks because in the stock DJGPP setup laid out by
DJGPP.ENV, only 'gcc' gets the necessary options that allow it to work,
and are thus placed in the '[gcc]' section of DJGPP.ENV.
> > 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.
The fix of duplicating the [gcc] section should do that, provided
that g++ actually does the necessary things, like auto-including
'-liostreams' and '-lstdcxx' in the linker command line.
OTOH, you're free to improve the DJGPP 'gxx.c' to only add the flags
if it's going to call the linker.
What makes things a bit worse is that your gxx.exe probably overwrote
the DJGPP one, so people might have to actually re-download djdev*.zip
and reinstall gxx.exe from there to recover...
HBB
- Raw text -