Mail Archives: djgpp-workers/2001/01/02/00:18:57
At 09:51 PM 1/1/01 +0000, Richard Dawe wrote:
>Hello.
<Snipped>
>Yes, I used bash.
I'm glad that explains it.
>> Nope, you got them all in that version of the patches. Thanks for
>the
>> testing and report. Please also try version #3a of the main patch,
>> posted yesterday, Dec. 31.
>
>I did apply version #3a, but I missed the inherit test. I get the
same
>results as you - again, under bash, with higher file descriptors in
the
>results.
Terrific, thank you for your help and reporting.
>> Under gcc 2.952 on my system (as.exe version 2.9.5 from
>bnu2951b.zip),
>> gas complains that the ljmp/lcall operands are (are not? I forget
now
>> which way it went) indirect. Adding a "*" operator in front of the
>> operands quiets the message. Eli advised they should be fixed,
even
>> though they do not stop the make, nor did it seem (in the early
days
>of
>> my testing, not tested without that patch since then) to affect the
>> running of libc functions and tests.
>
>While trying to fix similar warnings in libsocket, I found that the
>code
>generated for lcall was the same with or without the '*'. I did not
>compare code generation for ljmp. I have to say that the current
>solution
>for DJGPP are more elegant than the one I used in libsocket, libwin.
I did not think to look at the code generation, I was only dealing with
the warning errors. Curious that it generates the same object code,
but as long as it works, I'm happy. And I'm glad my solution seems
elegant, but I have to give credit where credit is due -- the idea for
the macros for LCALL/LJMP was due to Morten Welinder, and the idea to
use "suitable GNU Make magic, using the built-in string-manipulation
functions" is due to Eli.
Thanks again for your help.
---------------------------------------------------------
Peter J. Farley III (pjfarley AT dorsai DOT org OR
pjfarley AT banet DOT net)
- Raw text -