Message-Id:	<5.0.2.1.0.20001212202501.025a4b30@pop5.banet.net>
X-Sender:	usbanet DOT farley3 AT pop5 DOT banet DOT net
X-Mailer:	QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.0.2
Date:	Tue, 12 Dec 2000 20:29:23 -0500
To:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
From:	"Peter J. Farley III" <pjfarley AT banet DOT net>
Subject:	Re: Locking fcntl changes #2
In-Reply-To:	<200012120801.JAA14908@lws256.lu.erisoft.se>
References:	<5 DOT 0 DOT 2 DOT 1 DOT 0 DOT 20001212000231 DOT 02394850 AT pop5 DOT banet DOT net>
Mime-Version:	1.0
Reply-To:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Errors-To:	nobody AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To:	listserv AT delorie DOT com

At 09:01 AM 12/12/00 +0100, Martin Stromberg wrote:
<Snipped>
 >I'd be much happier if you seperated semantically different patches
 >into different submissions, such as this as warnings workarounds and
 >the locking code.

Yes, I can see now that it would be better to break it up a 
little.  After I fix all the things Eli  has pointed out, I will put 
together a script to make some kind of logical separation into multiple 
packages.

 >> In /tests I added the "makefile.def" file from /src and code to
 >include
 >> it in "/tests/makefile.inc", as well as making the same
 >> GAS-version-checking code changes as I put into 
"/src/makefile.inc".
 >>
 >> The "makefile.inc" files both also check for and use the correct
 >> location of "libgcc.a".
 >
 >This is another semantically different patch.

Yes, except that the ljmp/lcall changes depend on the makefile 
changes...  I'll figure something out.  But in any case, all of the 
diff packages will have to be applied together for all the changes I've 
made to build and test correctly.

---------------------------------------------------------
Peter J. Farley III (pjfarley AT dorsai DOT org OR
                      pjfarley AT banet DOT net)

- Raw text -