From: Erik Berglund Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.djgpp Subject: Re: bnu27s.zip Lines: 46 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2000 16:34:48 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 194.237.158.170 X-Complaints-To: abuse AT telia DOT com X-Trace: newsc.telia.net 950200488 194.237.158.170 (Thu, 10 Feb 2000 17:34:48 MET) NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2000 17:34:48 MET Organization: Telia Internet To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com DJ-Gateway: from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp Reply-To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com Hans-Bernhard Broeker wrote: > Erik Berglund wrote: > > > I'm trying to rebuild the old binutils as.exe and ld.exe > > from bnu27s.zip, when I get the following error messages: > > You have to go into binutl-2.7\opcodes and binutl-2.7\bfd first, and > execute 'make' there, to build those two libraries. 'as' and 'ld', > like the other binutils, operate by use of the BFD library. The > makefile setup of the older ports wasn't clean enough to automatically > jump into those directories and build them for you, if you start the > 'make' in 'gas' or 'ld', instead of the root directory of the source > tree. Thanks for your reply. Now they compile fine, both gas and ld. > OTOH: why would you want to do such a thing? Why do you think you need > versions 2.7 of gas or ld? No special reason, 2.81 should work just as well. The background is I'm trying to find out why I sometimes get a page fault signal from cc1.exe in a DOS box on my machine (Windows 3.11). I can work around the problem by turning off Virtual Memory or by using 'Unix sbrk', but I'd like to know why I get this error. (In plain DOS, with CWSDPMI, everything works fine.) Therefore I have rebuilt gcc, cpp, cc1, as and ld with my own ___sbrk and ___brk to see if that helps. They use a statically allocated memory area (16 Mb) just after the .bss area, so i have increased the DPMI-memory allocation in the stub with 16 Mb, and also increased the CS and DS limits with 16 Mb. In this way, ___sbrk (and malloc) will always return addresses between 0 and 2 Gb (I want to avoid addresses such as 0xfffeffff for instance, i think maybe Windows 3.11 has some problems with such high addresses). -- Erik Berglund erik2 DOT berglund AT telia DOT com