X-Authentication-Warning: delorie.com: mail set sender to djgpp-bounces using -f X-Recipient: djgpp AT delorie DOT com X-Original-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20210112; h=to:subject:message-id:date:from:references:in-reply-to:mime-version :from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=zucT4CKUVx8ODlo7pM6Qh0t+x9eKPzHAZGsOPIikRVc=; b=G2FVkfQOvnAQX/wxPpnPzQQkOcB27tu8hMymgBp/rTCgHh2f6o58m/T4ArHcdUIOJU OsJMoGWxj+YajYWubigIi9jskL1XVuVtDh5ITN3BJfuocQaDjKp69jFFD7snoyYZtc4U yVVIA8Ke2VuEzg9xrZrprw/BBvKpC8PrkCJgCNJ0W2ILIjRQvhKnO5jMfkFy32k41bA3 sQ4Ss7308ygMmHIkRtT+mnZyPIugp2wThL65X3qBA+mWjDx6XzfzSTL5Q3dO2Edmz4MX 3sSUNnOReCttGvGy5lvb2Ttk1s6yZnSylu7AXKpNLc7gKOVKqATQdcE6jTUf/jlTLit/ RHvQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=to:subject:message-id:date:from:references:in-reply-to:mime-version :x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=zucT4CKUVx8ODlo7pM6Qh0t+x9eKPzHAZGsOPIikRVc=; b=xYmM2/nIEZDMQk5EPQhVRu4YqakLFjbGVWIwYo+pAG9vcixkHKcKZNwXfUaq6NYDJB eK/cKEUv0cdFj8oEPQNLSCBGoT82wJQxHKNMtAj/hCSQdivIY6j6u8+8vULMt6yu4J+D a1H6Lvtz10isWR7iJwBtoPCBGm1ZnBl+ktJA5QGxG5+XJ0xz8PD1IciIATrb8T4OWgXA CnEKXDUtfJNXp5zNYPl8JOqLW+FV1mbo/gOtf3QyXdY/G1O3Gsm7OUEu4j6QWbMoNU4S iznxRJB3cEXBmg61K6h4DwBzmvtfiAfd/20ykey/w9FuBE/Nd+SDCi6P0G1OeiX5f6Br QEEA== X-Gm-Message-State: AFqh2kqMU0xnVRkH+RcI4/jQq9d8tf4cTlWqqb7Abojp7vsv9WS65PeS YzmKYr9QQIWCf7yeHKg86Qda8EKPYzIObB2GSsPOMD0D X-Google-Smtp-Source: AMrXdXvL/O4Nl8fYVmSUdiHBtf23rS/DInWmplRKSsI8GOI5OZ/7sj196FFpFypm+rkbJoxALKaFpgLITPDKmTbOFoc= X-Received: by 2002:a05:600c:1d25:b0:3da:fa8a:8511 with SMTP id l37-20020a05600c1d2500b003dafa8a8511mr2529583wms.185.1674892548623; Fri, 27 Jan 2023 23:55:48 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <83mt63azwi.fsf@gnu.org> References: <3b8f674c-bca3-c679-952e-f8ba5af196e7 AT gmail DOT com> <500850be-fd64-3f82-a1e1-929903084e9b AT gmail DOT com> <3d9271ae-266d-ee7b-853b-984857ced1c8 AT gmail DOT com> <83sffvbux1 DOT fsf AT gnu DOT org> <83mt63azwi DOT fsf AT gnu DOT org> From: "Ozkan Sezer (sezeroz AT gmail DOT com) [via djgpp AT delorie DOT com]" Date: Sat, 28 Jan 2023 10:55:47 +0300 Message-ID: Subject: Re: DXE3 with std::vector To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" 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 Precedence: bulk >>> makefile.dxe uses "?=", which AFAICT we never used in the DJGPP >>> build tree >> >> I can revert that part: Tell me? > > If it is not necessary, I think reverting it would be best. Sure, I can do that. >>> the code will no longer heed DXE_LD_LIBRARY_PATH and DJDIR >> >> I documented that in the applied patch: >> >> https://www.delorie.com/bin/cvsweb.cgi/djgpp/src/docs/kb/wc206.txi >> https://www.delorie.com/bin/cvsweb.cgi/djgpp/src/docs/kb/wc206.txi.diff?r1=1.15&r2=1.16 > > Instead of documenting, could we keep the previous behavior? [...] >> One can simply use -L/some/path -lfoo (verified that it works) > > OK, but can we actually still honor those variables in the new code, > so that if someone does use them, they could still use their scripts > and build procedures? [...] > I don't know. DJGPP is a very old project, and it is sometimes used > in strange and tricky configurations for perhaps unorthodox purposes. > By removing these variables we could inadvertently break someone's > project in some rare cases. Why do that if we could instead keep the > old behavior intact? You mean, even if it won't be used, compute the libdir from either DXE_LD_LIBRARY_PATH or DJDIR and add it as -L ? >> Change to something like this?? >> /* Allright, now build resulting file */ > > Something like this. If it's important to state which programs are > run, I would say > > /* Allright, now run the compiler to produce object and assembly files */ OK, can do. > "?=" was > introduced in GNU Make 3.77, but someone might be using an older > version. [...] > I don't know. DJGPP is a very old project, and it is sometimes used > in strange and tricky configurations for perhaps unorthodox purposes. With those in mind, what do you think about compatibility with old gcc versions? I found that at least gcc-2.95 doesn't work after this patch possibly because it doesn't handle -T dxe.ld on the command line. (I only tested gcc-3.4.6, maybe older ones don't work either.)