Date:	Wed, 18 Jul 2001 13:17:52 +0300 (IDT)
From:	Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
X-Sender:	eliz AT is
To:	Andris Pavenis <pavenis AT lanet DOT lv>
cc:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Subject:	Re: Comments on GCC 3.0 distribution
In-Reply-To:	<Pine.A41.4.05.10107131028450.51196-100000@ieva06.lanet.lv>
Message-ID:	<Pine.SUN.3.91.1010718130735.13783A-100000@is>
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, Andris Pavenis wrote:

> > 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.

Here's the list of patches I suggest to apply to djdev203 for building 
GCC 3.0:

  - the patch to _rename to solve problems on Windows 2000 and ME

  - the patch to _put_path to avoid creating the /dev/env directory

  - the patch to dpmiexcp.c and dosexec.c to work around NTVDM crashes on 
    Windows 2000

The last one will be a bit tricky, since dosexec.c underwent quite a few 
other changes, which I don't recommend to use in GCC 3.0 yet.

I compiled the above list by reading wc204.txi, so if some important 
changes aren't there, I might have missed them.  Also, I intentionally 
omitted several patches that are important, but not for GCC.

Comments?

- Raw text -