Mail Archives: djgpp-workers/2001/08/24/12:14:56
On Fri, 24 Aug 2001, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> > Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2001 11:10:28 -0400
> > From: DJ Delorie <dj AT delorie DOT com>
> >
> > > I think there is nothing bad of asking to have GCC and binutils
> > > versions to be used to build DJGPP runtime be in a reasonable range.
> > > We don't need to support older versions.
> >
> > I'm OK with saying that djgpp version Z is only supported with gcc
> > version X and binutils version Y, or newer, if we must. I'm OK with
> > saying gcc version A requires binutils version B or higher too.
>
> I agree, but this isn't my problem.
>
> My problem is with using the linker script from the source
> distribution in preference to the one from the installed
> compiler/library. We never did that before, and I don't see any
> reason why we should start now.
>
> I still don't understand why it is bad to try djgpp-x.djl. That's the
> script installed with the compiler, it is used for all the normal
> compilations, so it should be the first candidate for a library build.
> I understand the wish to pretend that djgpp-x.djl never happened, but
> I sincerely don't see how can we do that now.
>
Then I have a different suggestion:
let's remove DJGPP_DJL and all it's traces from src/Makefile.inc
Su we'll get behaviour we want (to use default linker script)
It will be djgpp-x.djl for gcc-3.0.X while we haven't dropped it or
lib/djgpp.djl for earlier GCC versions (unless installation is
broken of course). No need for any hacking to reach that
Andris
PS. I still think we should use linker script from source tree.
- Raw text -