Date:	Sun, 14 Nov 1999 09:34:53 +0200 (WET)
From:	Andris Pavenis <pavenis AT ieva01 DOT lanet DOT lv>
To:	Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
cc:	Laurynas Biveinis <lauras AT softhome DOT net>,
	DJGPP Workers <djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com>
Subject:	Re: GCC porting questions
In-Reply-To:	<Pine.SUN.3.91.991114084902.14510N-100000@is>
Message-ID:	<Pine.A41.4.05.9911140918540.260990-100000@ieva01.lanet.lv>
MIME-Version:	1.0
Reply-To:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To:	listserv AT delorie DOT com

On Sun, 14 Nov 1999, Eli Zaretskii wrote:

> 
> On Fri, 12 Nov 1999, Laurynas Biveinis wrote:
> 
> > I built GCC 2.95.2 with symlink support and resulting binary supports 
> > symlinks too. However, I think that building process itself could benefit
> > from symlinks, because in readme.DJGPP it is said:
> > -------
> >    in such parts Win95 DPMI server can take. Second reason was to
> >    simulate bootstraping gcc which was impossible in other way due to
> >    absence of fully functional symbolic links.
> > -------
> > So, where should I start looking ?
> 
> I'm not sure you should bother.
> 
> If I understand correctly from the fragment you cited, it pertains to
> the special kind of GCC build called ``bootstrap''.  This is done on a
> system where no previous version of GCC exists, and so the first
> compile is done using the system C compiler.
> 
> This situation cannot exist in the DJGPP world.  So we don't need to
> support bootstraping.
> 

Currently building gcc for DJGPP requires LFN support and is tested under
Win9X only. Bootstraping gcc is much too big task for Win9X DPMI server
even if we'll have real symlink support (it will run out of descriptors
much more early).

Therefore I choosed to simulate bootstrapping by calling different parts
from bat file (each part is small enough not to crash under Win9X DPMI
server and that helped also to workaround absence of symbolic links).

Anyway I haven't tested how much descriptors are left after each of these
steps. Maybe adding GPC support will be too much... .

So. Adding symlink support is not enough for real bootstrapping.

About possible fixes:
	modifying gcc to be able to build it without LFN support. It will
	be rather large amount of work. Also leaving config directories
	for other systems requires even more work even to resolve filename
	conflicts when unpacking gcc sources for DJGPP

	providing LFN support for DOS, so we could use CWSDPMI.
	Also LFN support for DOSEMU could also help, but when I last	
	tested DOSEMU DPMI server suffered from the same "disease" as
	Win9X one. But at least we have sources...

	Doing it under NT. At least when I last tried with LFN TSR from
	Andrew Crabtree it didn't work. Maybe in future...

Andris

- Raw text -