Mail Archives: djgpp-workers/2002/06/10/20:00:58
Hello.
Charles Sandmann wrote:
[snip]
> > * In djdev203.ver perhaps you could put 'June 2002' instead of '6/2002'.
>
> Could do so. I just modified what was done for refresh 1. Worth changing?
Only if you have time.
> > I extracted all of djdev203_u2.zip except djgpp.env over my current DJGPP
> > installation and then rebuilt DJGPP CVS + gcc 3.1 patches in a work area.
>
> Have you hand edited your djgpp.env? Some reason not to test the new
> version?
Yeah, I've hand-edited it - CVSROOT and suchlike - and I was too busy (OK,
lazy at that time ;) ) to merge it by hand. Every time I try to do everything
on my DJGPP libc to-do list, the list just gets longer!
Actually, I have a question about DJGPP.ENV, after hand-patching. In the RHIDE
section, why do we have:
+RHIDE_TYPED_LIBS_DJGPP.cc=stdcxx m
+RHIDE_TYPED_LIBS_DJGPP.cxx=stdcxx m
+RHIDE_TYPED_LIBS_DJGPP.cpp=stdcxx m
+RHIDE_TYPED_LIBS.f=g2c m
Why is there no '_DJGPP' in RHIDE_TYPED_LIBS.f? It used to be called
RHIDE_TYPED_LIBS_DJGPP.f. Looking at a message from Andris called "[Fix for
v2.03 refresh] Re: Undefined reference to _finite" on Thu, 30 May 2002
09:57:44 +0300 (WET), I see that his patch contains a
RHIDE_TYPED_LIBS_DJGPP.f.
> > I also built and ran some tests in tests/libc/ansi/stdio. FWIW that all
> > worked fine.
>
> Thanks. This is mostly documentation and a few lines of fixes, I didn't
> expect much bad to happen. Did the DSM look OK?
The DSM looked fine. I downloaded the full refresh a minute ago. I've just
upgraded to it using zippo.
I've just rebuilt DJGPP CVS + some patches with gcc 3.1 - this is the test I
did before. So the full refresh ZIP looks fine too.
Bye, Rich =]
--
Richard Dawe [ http://www.phekda.freeserve.co.uk/richdawe/ ]
- Raw text -