Date:	Fri, 22 Jun 2001 08:25:34 +0300 (WET)
From:	Andris Pavenis <pavenis AT lanet DOT lv>
To:	Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
Cc:	dj AT delorie DOT com, djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Subject:	Re: gcc 3.0 released
In-Reply-To:	<2110-Thu21Jun2001213135+0300-eliz@is.elta.co.il>
Message-ID:	<Pine.A41.4.05.10106220819220.51584-100000@ieva06.lanet.lv>
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

On Thu, 21 Jun 2001, Eli Zaretskii wrote:

> > 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?

Yes. I'm talking about djgpp.djl from 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?
> 

True. Anyway using the same name may cause problems if one unzips
djdev203.zip after gcc30b.zip. We had this rather long time ago
with gcc-2.8.1 (to start supporting C++ exceptions) and had to explain
this in readme file (which is still not read by many users). I think using
a different name is more safe and also harmless enough and does not
require writting special instructions. I'm going to install it
with gcc30b.zip in lib/gcc-lib/djgpp/3.0 so even if we'll have to do that
some more time in future there will be no need to change name any more 

Andris

- Raw text -