Date:	Thu, 21 Jun 2001 21:31:36 +0300
From:	"Eli Zaretskii" <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
Sender:	halo1 AT zahav DOT net DOT il
To:	Andris Pavenis <pavenis AT lanet DOT lv>
Message-Id:	<2110-Thu21Jun2001213135+0300-eliz@is.elta.co.il>
X-Mailer:	Emacs 20.6 (via feedmail 8.3.emacs20_6 I) and Blat ver 1.8.9
CC:	dj AT delorie DOT com, djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
In-reply-to:	<Pine.A41.4.05.10106211927210.132868-100000@ieva06.lanet.lv>
	(message from Andris Pavenis on Thu, 21 Jun 2001 19:32:45 +0300 (WET))
Subject:	Re: gcc 3.0 released
References:	<Pine DOT A41 DOT 4 DOT 05 DOT 10106211927210 DOT 132868-100000 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: Thu, 21 Jun 2001 19:32:45 +0300 (WET)
> From: Andris Pavenis <pavenis AT lanet DOT lv>
> 
> > > 
> > > Seems we have some showstopper:
> > > 	djgpp.djl from djdev203.zip is incompatible with gcc-3.0 (one from
> > > 	current CVS is OK). There is no other known problems with 
> > > 	djdev203
> 
> djgpp.djl from djdev203.zip doesn't contains all section names which are
> used. As result linker does bad things when linking. It was taken into
> account in CVS version some months ago

Sorry, I'm not sure I understand: are you talking about the DJGPP CVS?

> > > I can workaround that by small modifications:
> > > 	changing specs to use djgpp-x.djl (or some similar name) instead
> > > 		of djgpp.djl 
> > > 	put CVS version of djgpp-x.djl in the same directory where specs,
> > > 		cc1.exe, etc
> > > 
> 
> I can say simplier: I can workaround that by providing replacement
> for djgpp.dlj. Different name is choosed to avoid possibility to use 
> incompatible one. 

Assuming that the necessary changes are already in the DJGPP CVS, I'd
suggest to put that version into the GCC distribution, and let it
unzip into %DJDIR%/lib and replace whatever version of djgpp.djl is
there.  This will prevent problems with future upgrading to newer
versions of Binutils and DJGPP.

I'm assuming that the new djdgpp.djl won't do any harm with older
versions of GCC (so that people could still use several different
versions of GCC on the same machine).  Is that assumption true?

- Raw text -