From:	snowball3 AT usa DOT net
Message-Id:	<199812091631.QAA66208@out5.ibm.net>
To:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Date:	Wed, 9 Dec 1998 11:31:41 -0500
MIME-Version:	1.0
Subject:	Re: Minor problem building binutils snapshot
References:	<199812082148 DOT VAA24136 AT out4 DOT ibm DOT net>
In-reply-to:	<Pine.SUN.3.91.981209123403.7705N-100000@is>
X-mailer:	Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.01d)
Reply-To:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com

> The problem is in the ported Bash: it is mightily confused by a script
> which has mixed DOS/Unix-style EOL format (but doesn't have any
> problems with scripts that consistently use either style).  I didn't
> have time to look into the Bash sources, but I'd guess it computes the
> EOL style at the beginning, by looking at the first few lines, and
> then uses that to seek into the script.

I know this is stating the obvious, but it would be nice if both could 
be used in the same script.

>In my setup, configure script is run by a
> batch file anyway, so there's no problem to add a line to that batch
> file which runs utod.

I use a modified version of the batch file from the 2.8 binutils. I 
added calls to dtou in the batch file that calls ends up calling 
configure and everything worked out fine. Thanks!

I still can't figure out why I didn't run into the problem compiling 
Oct. 8th snapshot.

One of these days I'll have to get a Linux setup like Andris 
described in his reply. My experience at least with my 166 mhz 
machine is compiling binutils doesn't take all that long with egcs 
1.1. And with egcs 1.1.1, compiling is noticeably faster than with 
egcs 1.1. So my present setup is working out ok for me.

Mark

--- 
Mark Elbrecht snowball3 AT usa DOT net
http://members.xoom.com/snowball3/

- Raw text -