Mail Archives: djgpp-workers/1998/01/20/08:21:51
Robert wrote:
Here are some opinions
> I have done now a gcc 2.8.0 port for DJGPP after making
> some minor patches.
> It is at least stable enough to recompile gcc 2.8.0
> with itself and some test programs.
> (BTW: the hardest part was to build ligcc.a, but
> after some tricks it worked now).
>
> I have also already a first gcc280s.zip (about 5.2 MB)
> (in the common distribution format) and making the bin
> zip wouldn't be so hard.
>
> My questions are now the following:
>
> - Is there some interest for it? :-)
Yes, I'm interested.
> - Should we test the port first before makeing a
> public release? (I would prefer it)
Of course, we must be sure that it's less buggy than 2.7.2, and .0 versions are
normally more buggy.
> - Where to upload it for testing? (I would prefer a
> similar solution like the v2/.alphas directory)
I like it too.
> - Is it OK, to have the binaries configured (which
> needs mostly changes to djgpp.env) to search the
> executables in a more unix-like way in
>
> %DJDIR%/lib/gcc-lib/i386-pc-msdosdjgpp/2.80/
>
> (by setting GCC_EXEC_PREFIX)
>
> This would help also to have more than one gcc installed
> without conflicting them.
>
> I would prefer this technique, but how to include the changes
> for djggp.env in the gcc280b.zip? In the readme? Knowing
> that there are people which cannot read them?
>
> - Should the stabs debugging format be the default? (Which
> I would prefer). The only problems I see here are
>
> * GDB 4.16 cannot use exe's with mixed debugging information
> (the next version has not this bug)
>
> * FSDB and edebug32 cannot read the stabs debugging information
>
> * symify cannot be used, but for this I have written already
> a program "gsymify" (the name can be changed of course) which
> is based on the BFD library an can read both debugging information
> formats.
I think that making stabs as default isn't a good idea by now. But the people
that uses GDB, FSDB and edebug (and not RHIDE) can easily understand that they
must just add a switch in the compilation.
> - Should the binaries be built with the DJGPP alpha release
> or with the original 2.01 version?
I think that 2.01 is more stable, but perhaps alpha+free patched is better. I
think that for the test version the alpha is better because is a double test.
SET
------------------------------------ 0 --------------------------------
Visit my home page: http://set-soft.home.ml.org/
or
http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/Vista/6552/
Salvador Eduardo Tropea (SET). (Electronics Engineer)
Alternative e-mail: set-sot AT usa DOT net - ICQ: 2951574
Address: Curapaligue 2124, Caseros, 3 de Febrero
Buenos Aires, (1678), ARGENTINA
TE: +(541) 759 0013
- Raw text -