Mail Archives: djgpp-workers/2001/07/09/09:06:33
On 6 Jul 2001, at 18:08, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> First, thanks!
>
> I have a few comments on the distribution:
>
> - The readme.DJGPP says that users need to restore djgpp.djl from
> djdev203.zip, but I understand this is no longer required.
Simply forgot to update readme.DJGPP after last build.
> - The man pages in both gcc30b.zip and gpp30b.zip are not formatted.
>
> - gpp30b.zip installs a bunch of HTML files, but there's not a word
> about them in the various README's. What are they?
I copied in documentation directory of libstdc++-v3.
> - Why are the C++ headers installed into lang/cxx-v3 instead of
> lang/cxx? This seems to require gratuitous changes to djgpp.env.
Default instalation place of libstdc++ headers changes between
gcc-2.95.X and gcc-3.0 for other system. This was reason why I
changed it for DJGPP also. Otherwise it would be impossible to
have for example gcc-2.95.3 and gcc-3.0 in the same directory tree
(of course it requires renaming or moving some files)
About djgpp.env. gcc-2.7.2.1 was the latest version which required
$DJDIR/lang/cxx to be explicitly specified in djgpp.env as far as I
remeber. I think it's time to clean this outdated stuff. I could say the
same also about $DJDIR/include in specs.
> - There's a new Info manual cppinternals.info, for which there's no
> entry in info/DIR. I suggest to tell in readme.DJGPP how to add
> such an entry. (I already commited a change to dir.txi in the CVS
> to take care of this in v2.04.)
>
> - "cxxfilt --version" says something like
>
> GNU d:/foo/bar/baz/bin/cxxfilt.exe (C++ demangler), version 3.0
>
> I think this is ugly; I suggest that the leading directories and
> the .exe extension be removed.
>
It simply outputs argv[0]. Of course it would be possible to call
basename(argv[0]) for DJGPP only. Only question - is it really needed.
- Raw text -