Date:	Fri, 13 Jul 2001 09:13:16 +0300 (WET)
From:	Andris Pavenis <pavenis AT lanet DOT lv>
To:	Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
Cc:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Subject:	Re: Comments on GCC 3.0 distribution
In-Reply-To:	<2593-Thu12Jul2001220335+0300-eliz@is.elta.co.il>
Message-ID:	<Pine.A41.4.05.10107130904100.67752-100000@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, 12 Jul 2001, Eli Zaretskii wrote:

> > From: pavenis AT lanet DOT lv
> > Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2001 18:48:35 +0300
> > 
> > Maybe. Anyway I would want to hear some more feedback about 
> > binaries of gcc-3.0. I built them using current (at that time) CVS 
> > version of DJGPP.
> 
> Is it wise to distribute such a major part of the development
> toolchain that is based on a relatively untested library?  For
> example, we've just learned that it will be unable to read any files
> on Windows 2000 due to the FAT32 bit in _open.
> 
> There might be other problems and incompatibilities, for example in
> the symlink support.
> 

I think use of DJGPP on Win2K is in alpha stage now. I don't think we can
rate it higher now

With non modified djdev203 we should have the same NTVDM crash problem (on nested DPMI
tasks) anyway. I used patched libc to build gcc-3.0 (patch Eli send to
workaround NTVDM crashing problem). 

Now we have another problem with opening files under Win2K but as I think
it's not new, only it was not diagnosed correctly earlier

it seems that part of problems of latest versions of RHIDE under Win2K was
due to the same problem : RHIDE was not able to read files (including
djgpp.env) under Win2K

Andris

- Raw text -