From:	pavenis AT lanet DOT lv
To:	"Eli Zaretskii" <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>, djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Date:	Thu, 22 Feb 2001 18:13:39 +0200
MIME-Version:	1.0
Subject:	Upcoming gcc-2.95.3 [WAS: Re: GCC: DJGPP bootstrap fix + define MSDOS]
Message-ID:	<3A9556D3.24451.7D88C8@localhost>
In-reply-to:	<3028-Fri09Feb2001122621+0200-eliz@is.elta.co.il>
References:	<3A83DDDB DOT 27937 DOT 17876C AT localhost> (pavenis AT lanet DOT lv)
X-mailer:	Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.12c)
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

On 9 Feb 2001, at 12:26, Eli Zaretskii wrote:

> > From: pavenis AT lanet DOT lv
> > Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2001 12:08:59 +0200
> > 
> > The situation is different with gcc-3.0: as far as I understood gcc-2.97
> > currently cannot be bootstrapped for DJGPP if  -mbnu210 is not 
> > removed.
> 
> I'm confused: I thought you suggested to make it the default as the
> solution for gcc-3.0.
> 
> > Maybe it's possible to still provide these options simply for 
> > compatibility for some time without actually using them
> 
> That is certainly a good idea.  I think we should try not to break
> existing packages.

The question is whether to make -mbnu210 the default for upcoming 
gcc-2.95.3 as it perhaps will be releases rather soon.

I think that  -mbnu210 should be default also there. I'll intend to build 
gcc-2.95.3 for DJGPP using binutils-2.9.1 so one will be able to use
option -mno-bnu210. Currently native build seems to work Ok
(gcc-2.95.3.test4).  Remaining part is to clean scripts for building 
DJGPP targeted cross-compiler and cross-building native compiler for 
DJGPP (I'm able to check that under Linux only).

It's possible that I'll build binary packages of gcc-2.95.3 for DJGPP 
under Linux. I could also provide Linux to DJGPP cross-compiler 
binaries (glibc-2.2 or above required)

Andris

- Raw text -