X-Authentication-Warning:	delorie.com: mailnull set sender to djgpp-workers-bounces using -f
From:	sandmann AT clio DOT rice DOT edu (Charles Sandmann)
Message-Id:	<10112161725.AA20038@clio.rice.edu>
Subject:	Re: GCC build with 2.03 refresh OK (Win2K, WinXP) - Ready for ?
To:	eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il (Eli Zaretskii)
Date:	Sun, 16 Dec 2001 11:25:38 -0600 (CST)
Cc:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
In-Reply-To:	<Pine.SUN.3.91.1011216104351.13127Q-100000@is> from "Eli Zaretskii" at Dec 16, 2001 10:44:06 AM
X-Mailer:	ELM [version 2.5 PL2]
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 Sat, 15 Dec 2001, Charles Sandmann wrote:
> 
> > > There's one report of trouble with WIN95 (Subject: cc1plus.exe: Cannot
> > > allocate 65536 bytes after allocating XXXXX bytes in c.o.m.d) which
> > > might be a problem with the refresh.
> > 
> > 1) OP says it works under DOS
> > 2) Eli says it works under Win98
> 
> My message wasn't about the patched binaries.  I use the original
> binaries produced by Andris.  I don't know what does this say about
> this particular problem.

Andris's binaries were built on the 2.03 refresh patches - we're talking
about the same binaries.  I just ran the sample problem on Win95 using
the 3.02 binaries (from Simtel) which are a test for the 2.03 refresh -
and I did not have any problem with the compile.

I don't believe the problem quoted in the newgroup (which is a week old
with no other feedback from the author) is a refresh problem - more likely
a Windows 95 memory configuration problem straight out of the FAQ.

Now, I can get almost the exact same error in W95 by limiting the amount
of DPMI memory to 14336Kb.  So it takes 15Mb to compile a null program
with GPP 3.02.  What does it take to convince you guys this isn't a 
refresh issue?  Give me break.

- Raw text -