Mail Archives: djgpp-workers/1998/12/07/04:38:26
On 7 Dec 98, at 1:26, DJ Delorie wrote:
>
> > Considering the above, which specs file do we recommend people to use
> > now: the one from djdev or the one from gcc281b?
>
> I don't think it matters, but of course only the 2.02 one has the
> right version number :-) (note: version.h, included by a couple of
> common headers, redefines the version number just to be sure. stdio.h
> can be included to make sure you have the right version number and
> still be backward compatible).
>
I found '#include <sys/version.h>' only in stdio.h and go32.h. I think
sys/version.h is best way how to define minor version of DJGPP
(and it should be no more done from specs). However I think it would
be best to include from more standard header files (for example stdlib.h,
stddef.h,...).
specs file is thing that belongs to gcc distribution, therefore
I think it should be distributed only there. We also may may need to change
it when compiler version is changed, which cannot be done easily when
specs file is distributed somewhere else.
For egcs I'm modifying only those parts of specs I have to modify for
DJGPP. Therefore of course specs file is different.
I don't see any special problems with specs file from djdev202.zip except
than *startfile spec in djdev202.zip has reference to mcrt0.o
which was not present in archive.
> > Also, since crt0.o now handles the exceptions setup, how come the specs
> > file from gcc281b.zip still links in crt0f.o? Won't that cause link
> > errors?
>
> Robert assures me that they'll work right even when both linked in.
>
There should be no problems if crtf.o will be linked (however it is
redundant with DJGPP-2.02)
Andris
- Raw text -