Date:	Fri, 24 Aug 2001 18:39:59 +0300
From:	"Eli Zaretskii" <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
Sender:	halo1 AT zahav DOT net DOT il
To:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Message-Id:	<6480-Fri24Aug2001183958+0300-eliz@is.elta.co.il>
X-Mailer:	Emacs 20.6 (via feedmail 8.3.emacs20_6 I) and Blat ver 1.8.9
In-reply-to:	<200108241510.LAA11989@envy.delorie.com> (message from DJ Delorie
	on Fri, 24 Aug 2001 11:10:28 -0400)
Subject:	Re: gcc-3.0.1 and Win2k
References:	<3B8664C8 DOT 23360 DOT DCAE88 AT localhost> (pavenis AT lanet DOT lv) <3B8673CE DOT 7807 DOT 117624D AT localhost> <200108241510 DOT LAA11989 AT envy DOT delorie DOT com>
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, 24 Aug 2001 11:10:28 -0400
> From: DJ Delorie <dj AT delorie DOT com>
> 
> > 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.
> 
> I'm OK with saying that djgpp version Z is only supported with gcc
> version X and binutils version Y, or newer, if we must.  I'm OK with
> saying gcc version A requires binutils version B or higher too.

I agree, but this isn't my problem.

My problem is with using the linker script from the source
distribution in preference to the one from the installed
compiler/library.  We never did that before, and I don't see any
reason why we should start now.

I still don't understand why it is bad to try djgpp-x.djl.  That's the
script installed with the compiler, it is used for all the normal
compilations, so it should be the first candidate for a library build.
I understand the wish to pretend that djgpp-x.djl never happened, but
I sincerely don't see how can we do that now.

- Raw text -