Date:	Fri, 09 Feb 2001 11:41:01 +0200
From:	"Eli Zaretskii" <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
Sender:	halo1 AT zahav DOT net DOT il
To:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Message-Id:	<5137-Fri09Feb2001114100+0200-eliz@is.elta.co.il>
X-Mailer:	Emacs 20.6 (via feedmail 8.3.emacs20_6 I) and Blat ver 1.8.6
CC:	snowball3 AT bigfoot DOT com, Andris Pavenis <pavenis AT lanet DOT lv>
In-reply-to:	<Pine.A41.4.05.10102090913070.95006-100000@ieva06.lanet.lv>
	(message from Andris Pavenis on Fri, 9 Feb 2001 09:27:12 +0200 (WET))
Subject:	Re: GCC: DJGPP bootstrap fix + define MSDOS
References:	<Pine DOT A41 DOT 4 DOT 05 DOT 10102090913070 DOT 95006-100000 AT ieva06 DOT lanet DOT lv>
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

> Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2001 09:27:12 +0200 (WET)
> From: Andris Pavenis <pavenis AT lanet DOT lv>
> 
> Sorry for typo. I really included
> 
> #define CC1_SPEC %{!mno-bnu210: -mbnu210} 
> 
> in gcc/cinfig/i386/djgpp.h.
> 
> Yes it would also be possible to revert meaning of MASK_BNU210 in
> SUBTARGET_SWITCHES as it's done in gcc-2.97 currently. I thought about
> that but prefered a way I did at that time
> 
> One small problem with removal of -mbnu210: 
> 
> when compiling STLPort 4.0 for DJGPP (stlp40s.zip) this flag is explicitly
> used. So build will be broken if we totally remove it. Maybe there are
> other similar packages.

Would making -mbnu210 be used by GCC by default solve both problems?
If so, I think we should use that.

If we choose this solution, could users use -no-mbnu210 to reverse the
default?

- Raw text -