X-Authentication-Warning:	hp2.xraylith.wisc.edu: khan owned process doing -bs
Date:	Tue, 18 Jan 2000 22:46:25 -0600 (CST)
From:	Mumit Khan <khan AT NanoTech DOT Wisc DOT EDU>
To:	pavenis AT lanet DOT lv
cc:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Subject:	Re: (patch) updated protoize patch
In-Reply-To:	<B0000115233@stargate.astr.lu.lv>
Message-ID:	<Pine.HPP.3.96.1000118223759.6032L-100000@hp2.xraylith.wisc.edu>
MIME-Version:	1.0
Reply-To:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Errors-To:	dj-admin AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To:	listserv AT delorie DOT com

On Mon, 10 Jan 2000 pavenis AT lanet DOT lv wrote:

> Well, I did some tests with DJGPP. After fixing bug in 
> gcc/config/i386/xm-djgpp.h (HAVE_DOS_BASED_FILESYSTEM were
> written instead of  HAVE_DOS_BASED_FILE_SYSTEM) and after 
> fixing following additional things in protoize.c
> 
> 	- expanding $DJDIR in begin of filename in process_aux_info_file()
> 
> 	-  replacing aux_info_suffix for DJGPP (I used "X" instead of ".X"
> 	   as foo.c.X in not a legal file name for DOS when LFN support is
> 	   not available)
> 
> 	- I also used /dev/null instead of "NUL:" of course
> 
> protoize and unprotoize seems to work. However I haven't done much 
> tests with it
> 

Hi Andris,

Thanks for your comments. Since you mention that foo.c.X is not a legal
DOS filename, there is another one to deal with -- currently a foo.c is
saved as foo.c.save. I've tentatively changed that to `foo.csaved' 
instead, which looks ugly but at least workable. 

I however am going to skip the change regarding $DJDIR -- this is not
the established practice in gcc sources, and I don't want my patch to
get bogged down because of this. I'll let the djgpp gcc maintainers 
handle this issue.

I also changed the ``DJGPP'' macro to __MSDOS__ following the rest of gcc. 
DJGPP seems to yet another namespace polluting macro -- I would think that 
you guys would use __DJGPP__ instead.

I'll get these changes into mainline gcc sometime this week.

Regards,
Mumit

ps: it's much easier if you send me patches against a patched version,
ie., an incremental patch; otherwise it's quite hard to tell what you've 
fixed/modified by inspection.

- Raw text -