Date:	Fri, 13 Jul 2001 10:34:16 +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:	<2110-Fri13Jul2001103230+0300-eliz@is.elta.co.il>
Message-ID:	<Pine.A41.4.05.10107131028450.51196-100000@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 Fri, 13 Jul 2001, Eli Zaretskii wrote:

> > 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?

Binaries seems to be stable enough on Win9X. I haven't get a serious
trouble with them. Of course Win2K is a different beast and I don't have
possibility to test anything with it.

> 
> > 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.
 
Ok. Anyway I don't promise to use them in 2 nearest weeks. 

> > 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.
> 

I don't remeber exactly but I think it was build using CVS version of
library (I never applied FAT32 patches separatelly)

Andris

- Raw text -