delorie.com/archives/browse.cgi   search  
Mail Archives: djgpp-workers/1998/09/07/04:24:16

Date: Mon, 7 Sep 1998 11:19:09 +0200 (WET)
From: Andris Pavenis <pavenis AT lanet DOT lv>
To: Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
cc: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Subject: Re: egcs-1.1a uploaded
In-Reply-To: <Pine.SUN.3.91.980907104744.23208A-100000@is>
Message-ID: <Pine.A32.3.91.980907105007.53502A-100000@ieva06.lanet.lv>
MIME-Version: 1.0


On Mon, 7 Sep 1998, Eli Zaretskii wrote:

> 
> The following comments are based solely on reading the message about
> the port; I didn't try using EGCS yet.
> 
> On Friday, 4 Sep 1998, Andris Pavenis wrote:
> 
> > stl_algobase.h       -> stlalgobase.h
> > stl_hash_map.h       -> stlhashmap.h
> > stl_hash_set.h       -> stlhashset.h
> > stl_hashtable.h      -> stlhashtable.h
> > stl_multiset.h       -> stlmultiset.h
> 
> Of these, why the first and the last needed to be renamed?  Do they
> clash with some other header files, which are not shown here?

I think the following output from Linux (where renaming is not needed
of course) answers this question:

hal:~# cd /usr/include/g++
hal:/usr/include/g++# ls stl_algo*
stl_algo.h      stl_algobase.h
hal:/usr/include/g++# ls stl_mult*
stl_multimap.h  stl_multiset.h
hal:/usr/include/g++#

> 
> > The DJGPP distribution of g++ and libg++ already come with these
> > translation files, but they are currently not used. To use them, you
> > have to modify your specs file to add the "-remap" switch to the
> > call to cpp
> 
> Is there any reason not to put -remap into specs by default?  Since
> the specs file is now specific to the compiler and installs into a
> compiler-specific directory, using -remap doesn't seem to interfere
> with anything, right?

I think it would be possible. Only question here: how big is possibility
to get problems in case of bad installation. DJDEV contains specs in
$DJDIR/lib which can interfere with compiler-specific one if $DJDIR/lib
is searched before compiler-specific directory 
 
> > You need LFN support to build egcs-1.1a from current sources (don't
> > even try to do this when LFN support is not available, this will not
> > work).
> 
> I would strongly suggest to fix that.  Many people still use plain
> DOS, even for development, and it isn't nice to prevent them from
> rebuilding the compiler, especially since EGCS, as an experimental
> version, will probably have more bugs to be corrected.
> 
> Are the LFN problems that hard to fix?  What could possibly be so hard
> to make them right there?  Similar problems were handled in every
> other DJGPP port, so I'd expect this one to be no harder.

Yes it would be nice. I can only mention that in sources of port of 
gcc-2.8.1 some things were broken when makeing them build without
LFN support (fortunate this caused only unnecesary rebuilding some
parts each time)

> 
> > The sources are _NOT_ the complete sources like the original
> > egcs-1.1a distribution. I have removed many files to save disk space
> > which are not needed for the DJGPP port.
> 
> I think this is a bad idea.  Consider somebody who would want to add a
> feature to the DJGPP port which is supported on other platforms, or
> build a cross-compiler from this version: they *will* need some of the
> ``unneeded'' files, and it is a pain in the lower back to fetch the
> full EGCS distribution (that might not be available by then, given the
> speed they release new versions) and then merge the two distributions.
> The cursing this will trigger will be heard from here to Latvia ;-).
 
We still can download all original releases (and even all snapshots)
of egcs from ftp.cygnus.com and mirrors. I included bash script that
updates egcs-1.1 sources for DJGPP (it is only necessary to delete
part that cleans source directory from unneeded sources). Maybe it would be
better to split this script into 2 parts.

> It is okay to provide a smaller source distribution for those who
> don't need the rest, but please at least let there be a separate zip
> file with all the rest, at the same site, so those who need it could
> have it.
> 
> > Now you run make by typing
> > sh djmake.sh [any-additional-parameter]
> 
> Does the build process compile the compiler twice: once with an
> existing gcc, and then again with itself?  If not, maybe you should
> suggest people to recompile the compiler after installing the initial
> version, since the usual GCC build procedure actually does it in two
> stages.

Unfortunatelly ./djmake.sh bootstrap will not work. It may be really
better to suggest to build egcs twice.

Andris

- Raw text -


  webmaster     delorie software   privacy  
  Copyright © 2019   by DJ Delorie     Updated Jul 2019