Subject: B19 vs B20 for building egcs
From: [email-masked]

4 Nov 1998 19:46:57 -0800
Message-ID: <[email-masked]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
To: [email-masked]

I've spent (wasted?) some time comparing how well B19 and B20 are doing for
building egcs.

On an NT4/SP3 box, B20 may be working as well as B19 with coolview, provided
that the same make and binutils are installed on both.  The make which comes
with B20 is better than the one in B19, but it fails to install certain parts
of the build e.g. f771.exe cc1.exe etc. so I've gone back to make-3.77.  The
binutils which come with B20 (and with Mumit Khan's excellent egcs-1.1 for
B19) die on certain asm()'s and don't appear to implement the ".p2align"ments
fully.  Ignoring .p2align directives produces smaller slower .exe's,
measureably slower even on p6 but more so on p2.

In order to make b20 work while b19 is still present on disk, it seems
necessary to rename the b19 directory.  This doesn't help on W95, but
considering the remarks about W95 not being fully supported, I'm not ready to
blow B19 away.  Switching between b19 and b20 also requires (I think)
switching versions of bash in /bin/sh.exe and copying the cygwinxx.dll into
each other's bin directories.

It sure would be nice if the dejagnu in B20 can be brought to life.

Just commenting in case someone has helpful suggestions.
-
For help on using this list (especially unsubscribing), send a message to
"[email-masked]" with one line of text: "help".