From:	pavenis AT lanet DOT lv
To:	"Eli Zaretskii" <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>, djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Date:	Fri, 24 Aug 2001 15:33:34 +0300
MIME-Version:	1.0
Subject:	Re: gcc-3.0.1 and Win2k
Message-ID:	<3B8673CE.7807.117624D@localhost>
In-reply-to:	<1438-Fri24Aug2001151403+0300-eliz@is.elta.co.il>
References:	<3B8664C8 DOT 23360 DOT DCAE88 AT localhost> (pavenis AT lanet DOT lv)
X-mailer:	Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.12c)
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 24 Aug 2001, at 15:14, Eli Zaretskii wrote:

> > From: pavenis AT lanet DOT lv
> > Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2001 14:29:28 +0300
> > > 
> > > Can you tell what's wrong with using the change I suggested?
> > 
> > If some package needs specific linker script, it is best that it provides 
> > script (Currently out CVS version needs it when not very new binutils 
> > versions are being used). Relaying on name which is now used by 
> > GCC is not safe.
> 
> That's why there's a fallback, djgpp.djl.
> 
> Anyway, we must solve this problem somehow.  The current situation is
> IMHO unacceptable.

I think there is nothing bad  of asking to have GCC and binutils 
versions to be used to build DJGPP runtime be in a reasonable range.
We don't need to support older versions.

About new GCC and binutils versions. It is possible that some 
changes will be needed, so one will need to do changes to make 
things to compatible with new software.

If we could ask that, then it can be verified that djgpp.djl supplied with
with sources is compatible with supported software versions. If one 
wants to use his own custom linker script one must know what is 
being done and how to do that. 

Andris

- Raw text -