X-Authentication-Warning:	delorie.com: mail set sender to djgpp-bounces using -f
X-Recipient:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com
RazorGate-KAS:	Status: not_detected
RazorGate-KAS:	Rate: 0
RazorGate-KAS:	Envelope from:
RazorGate-KAS:	Version: 5.5.3
RazorGate-KAS:	LuaCore: 80 2014-11-10_18-01-23
	260f8afb9361da3c7edfd3a8e3a4ca908191ad29
RazorGate-KAS:	Lua profiles 69136 [Nov 12 2014]
RazorGate-KAS:	Method: none
Subject:	Re: Is DJGPP Emacs still wanted?
To:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com
References:	<83bn4uxben DOT fsf AT gnu DOT org> <837ffix9o7 DOT fsf AT gnu DOT org>
	<5722455F DOT 3020906 AT gmx DOT de> <831t5py22r DOT fsf AT gnu DOT org> <57228FEC DOT 9080408 AT gmx DOT de>
	<83mvocx0iw DOT fsf AT gnu DOT org>
From:	"Andris Pavenis (andris DOT pavenis AT iki DOT fi) [via djgpp AT delorie DOT com]" <djgpp AT delorie DOT com>
Message-ID:	<57244D36.4040103@iki.fi>
Date:	Sat, 30 Apr 2016 09:14:14 +0300
User-Agent:	Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101
	Thunderbird/38.7.1
MIME-Version:	1.0
In-Reply-To:	<83mvocx0iw.fsf@gnu.org>
Reply-To:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com
Errors-To:	nobody AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To:	listserv AT delorie DOT com

On 04/29/2016 11:49 AM, Eli Zaretskii (eliz AT gnu DOT org) [via djgpp AT delorie DOT com] wrote:
>> Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2016 00:34:20 +0200
>> From: "Juan Manuel Guerrero (juan DOT guerrero AT gmx DOT de) [via djgpp AT delorie DOT com]" <djgpp AT delorie DOT com>
>>
>> If gdb64 is not good enough to debug emacs issues, then we have reach the end
>> of the road of the DJGPP port of emacs.  I have neither the skills nor the time
>> to fix broken coff debug support neither in binutils nor in gdb.
> This raises an issue that is IMO important to discuss.  It is
> certainly important for me personally.  Here it is:
>
>    Do we still want/need to build latest Emacs versions with DJGPP?
>
> So please tell me if these efforts are still needed.  Does anyone use
> a DJGPP Emacs for their routine work, on DJGPP or anything else?
> Because if no one needs this port, all my efforts to maintain it are
> just a huge waste of time.
>
> We are all volunteers here.  But if a volunteer's work is unused,
> he/she should invest their energy elsewhere.
>
> Please respond.  If no one responds to these questions, I will
> conclude that the DJGPP port of Emacs is not needed anymore, and will
> stop trying to keep it in working order.
>
I'm also belong to those who do not use DJGPP port of Emacs even if I'm using regularly Emacs
at work, also for own projects. I have tried it (DJGPP port) really long time ago  (if I remember
correctly) but gave up then. Changing to use Emacs take some time and then I preferred RHIDE
and some other similar editors at that time. Much later I changed to use Emacs but mostly under
Linux and rather seldom under Windows and never Emacs DJGPP port.

Andris

PS. Similarly I have abandoned attempts to maintain RHIDE about 10 years ago. Adapting
it to new versions of gcc and especially gdb become then more and more difficult.

- Raw text -