Mail Archives: djgpp-workers/2001/07/09/10:12:51
On 9 Jul 2001, at 16:55, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
>
> On Mon, 9 Jul 2001 pavenis AT lanet DOT lv wrote:
>
> > > - 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.
>
> But the version of djgpp.env that users have on their machines, which
> comes from djdev203.zip, does specify CPLUS_INCLUDE_PATH, and it points
> to lang/cxx, not lang/cxx-v3. Won't this break C++ programs, especially
> if the users don't remove previous installation?
No it shouldn't do any harm.
'[cpp]' section in djgpp.env is stale anyway gcc since gcc-2.95.3 uses
cpp0 instead of cpp (gcc-3.0 uses cpp0 only in some cases, eg. when
dumping preprocessed source is required)
> > I think it's time to clean this outdated stuff.
>
> Yes, but how can we clean that without releasing a new djdev?
>
It seems that this outdated stuff shouldn't harm anybody
Anyway maybe I should prepare patch for removing this outdated
stuff from djgpp.env
> > > - "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.
>
> I think it's a good idea not only for DJGPP: if you invoke
> "/foo/bar/bz/cxxfilt --version" on Unix, it will print its full path as
> well. I think this is ugly. The intent of that message is to announce
> the _name_ of the program, not its full path.
>
> Granted, this is a minor nuisance, so if you think it's not important,
> feel free to disregard.
If we have more that one cxxfilt.exe then at least I see which one
printed version. Of course it's ugly, but could somethimes be usefull
Andris
- Raw text -