Date:	Fri, 13 Jul 2001 10:32:31 +0300
From:	"Eli Zaretskii" <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
Sender:	halo1 AT zahav DOT net DOT il
To:	pavenis AT lanet DOT lv
Message-Id:	<2110-Fri13Jul2001103230+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:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
In-reply-to:	<Pine.A41.4.05.10107130904100.67752-100000@ieva06.lanet.lv>
	(message from Andris Pavenis on Fri, 13 Jul 2001 09:13:16 +0300 (WET))
Subject:	Re: Comments on GCC 3.0 distribution
References:	<Pine DOT A41 DOT 4 DOT 05 DOT 10107130904100 DOT 67752-100000 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: Fri, 13 Jul 2001 09:13:16 +0300 (WET)
> From: Andris Pavenis <pavenis AT lanet DOT lv>
> > 
> > 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

That's true, but why make the situation worse by introducing
additional bugs?

> With non modified djdev203 we should have the same NTVDM crash
> problem (on nested DPMI tasks) anyway.

I didn't meant to say you should use stock djdev203.  I think there
are a few patches that you should apply to djdev203 to make GCC 3.0
better, but still stable enough to be trusted.

I suggest we discuss what patches to apply to djdev203, to build GCC
with the patched library.  If you agree, I'm willing to post a list of
patches I'd recommend, as a starting point for such a discussion.

> I used patched libc to build
> gcc-3.0 (patch Eli send to workaround NTVDM crashing problem).

This is one of the patches we should IMHO apply to djdev203.  It needs
to be applied anyway, even if you build with the CVS version of the
library, since I didn't yet commit it, pending final evaluation by the
person who suggested the idea.

> 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 is new with the CVS library; it didn't exist in djdev203, because,
as far as ANdrew's analysis shows so far, it was caused by adding the
FAT32 bit to the open mode passed to the OpenFile function.

> 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

Wasn't the latest RHIDE built with the CVS library as well, or at
least with FAT32 patches?  If not, if RHIDE was built with stock
djdev203, we might have another problem on our hands.

- Raw text -