X-Authentication-Warning:	ieva01.lanet.lv: pavenis owned process doing -bs
Date:	Thu, 23 Sep 1999 14:13:54 +0300 (WET)
From:	Andris Pavenis <pavenis AT lanet DOT lv>
To:	Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
cc:	Davin McCall <DavMac AT iname DOT com>, djgpp AT delorie DOT com
Subject:	Re: Compiling GCC
In-Reply-To:	<Pine.SUN.3.91.990923104155.10652E-100000@is>
Message-ID:	<Pine.A41.4.05.9909231406380.62740-100000@ieva01.lanet.lv>
MIME-Version:	1.0
Reply-To:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To:	listserv AT delorie DOT com

On Thu, 23 Sep 1999, Eli Zaretskii wrote:

> 
> On Wed, 22 Sep 1999 pavenis AT lanet DOT lv wrote:
> 
> > > djconfig.log's first line reads:
> > > 
> > > c:/djgpp/bin/sed.exe: -e expression #2, char 1: Unknown command: ``.''
> > > 
> > > Maybe this is the problem?
> > > 
> > 
> > It seems to be due bug in DJGPP port of bash-1.14.7 (result depends 
> > on length of name of directory where gcc sources are unpacked, mor 
> > exactly perhaps length of full patch:
> > 	c:/tmp/x/   - problem was there
> >        c:/tmp/xxxxxxxx/  - no problem
> 
> Bash does some special magic for Sed, because the automatic 
> transformation of the //x/foo form of the DOS file names can misfire if 
> it is actually a Sed script that uses slashes.  Perhaps this is what 
> causes Bash to fail in this case.
> 
> One more proof that //x/foo is not such a good idea, if you ask me.
> 

Perhaps I should mention in readme that using port of bash-2.0.3 (even in
beta) is prefered. Earlier I tested building gcc using bash-1.14.7 but
current problems shows that I only suceeded to hide problems under cover.
For last my builds recent beta of port of bash-2.0.3 were used. There were 
no similar problems after I fixed initial ones.

One more thing to mention there is URL where to get binaries of INFO-ZIP 
compiled with DJGPP as this is required to build binary archives and
according posts in this mailing list not all have it.

Andris

- Raw text -