Mail Archives: djgpp-workers/2002/06/10/23:59:37
> > > * 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.
Since I'll be adding copyright lines, why not. The other suggestion was
2002-06 (ISO) for the date. Since no one commented on it in refresh 1
whoever feels the most strongly about it (short of an overwhelming vote)
wins. (Does anyone/anything look at the .ver file?)
> Actually, I have a question about DJGPP.ENV, after hand-patching. In the RHIDE
> section, why do we have:
>
> +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.
In the mentioned message the .f entry was unmodified; the _DJGPP was
removed in cvs revsion 1.9 by Eli. Someone who knows something about
RHIDE should make sure the above is correct. If it's not we need to fix
both CVS and the refresh... But my bet's on Eli :-)
> The DSM looked fine. I downloaded the full refresh a minute ago. I've just
> upgraded to it using zippo.
great!
> 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.
Looking good then. I'll add copyright dates, let someone else decide
about which of the 3 date formats to use, and wait for a final call on
the RHIDE .f entry
- Raw text -