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=o956JaCJ15qgaZpuOGfH+Yr+vbrynbXeW755FqgVHSA=; b=OzcS/iakBFCvBwBYRgpGmRsY8SGCUzw6r0YWgkZOPRWmi7wkce/PO8wD7SK/VNlnDz 3F6BZYzIPmyhRnDDJ0fpJhT9ChKI4JKcNDW5pYOgQDSCmnNsdTVwh+H8h4K3z/P3Aatt EC18iAmepY01frd/sJD8NI4kvrlrf50hTWFQWxDOpP1Werk7vPvJ8v5O/c5RiLjzsf5v KB214lcnnvEZotFNlUjcR+xSpnN8nV0Dq1828UbXboCCMBko5rcF8xuUt7Uv4e66r5sR 4i5/DAR7Wel8ueJ+SxwSsRcLzWn1/S/ITNUnCIbMXfLy324J8WfIDqBQIzg0bDg6CIix 01SA== 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=o956JaCJ15qgaZpuOGfH+Yr+vbrynbXeW755FqgVHSA=; b=Obj1cj7BcN9zYeYSxyi739RhJ+qNZsOUTvQ3snuLkhNh/PmlpOGnEJqr4Jf+HHeD6E /iSfGXoq77sHEqy+K0CScGKvCREq9MK4yw++qPX+v++k0hcJznHLBLSmaT4eXUO0ciNF ecScZqPhPq0XzhwKiTvU8CnRgj6xczxMNuTo52PHf54Cn54xN0QCn+HmK2MTBFMGESlP O920rh5lA+aCP12B82DyLj0N6dB9XWyJGI2fhrFm26r8fcQhDSq4JhgtUtrL6S22CFgc Mb3s4SpM8bsQayk7ycaUPhKFcuS7VLVeSa2tsZX5Mj1GEkXOjoNstSgzVh/H2vt9OoLL bljw== X-Gm-Message-State: AFqh2kpbj+YDFojm7bbo/bIIuDYLGxAKTLcnMXpHC6K6p4f+GvUWusC7 f5Dw+XMyTCKTWQOF5r0D3YtZMrvdVLKzOXXx1lwSiSmu X-Google-Smtp-Source: AMrXdXuKOftNob9+SHSlJTFk/Zgh88FbL1oOt+Q0tq6yqmC7HSBjOdN1YsgKdFUiXf+3tCaMuvl4oXa1Civdxm2Db6A= X-Received: by 2002:a05:600c:4ca7:b0:3cf:7b68:631 with SMTP id g39-20020a05600c4ca700b003cf7b680631mr2074367wmp.55.1674899481938; Sat, 28 Jan 2023 01:51:21 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <83y1pn9ffg.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> <82cff092-6dfe-1dfc-7946-cdb84c44e11b AT gmail DOT com> <114b292b-7f6c-3b19-7e9a-88a261ee063a AT gmail DOT com> <83h6wbayya DOT fsf AT gnu DOT org> <834jsbavcp DOT fsf AT gnu DOT org> <83y1pn9ffg 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 12:51:21 +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 On 1/28/23, Eli Zaretskii (eliz AT gnu DOT org) [via djgpp AT delorie DOT com] wrote: >> From: "Ozkan Sezer (sezeroz AT gmail DOT com) [via djgpp AT delorie DOT com]" >> >> Date: Sat, 28 Jan 2023 12:12:50 +0300 >> >> On 1/28/23, Eli Zaretskii (eliz AT gnu DOT org) [via djgpp AT delorie DOT com] >> wrote: >> >> From: "Ozkan Sezer (sezeroz AT gmail DOT com) [via djgpp AT delorie DOT com]" >> >> >> >> Date: Sat, 28 Jan 2023 11:07:07 +0300 >> >> >> >> This can be a show stopper, so I _can_ revert the whole patch: The >> >> patch was made for the whole purpose of dxe3gen finding -lgcc (and >> >> -lstdc++) automatically in the first place, and one can just do the >> >> manual labor of copying them to $(DJDIR)/lib easily (a documentation >> >> about it from someone would be nice.) >> > >> > Having "-L$(DJDIR)/lib" and using GCC to find the standard libraries >> > are not contradicting goals, are they? The -L switch just says "look >> > in that directory as well", it doesn't replace the standard >> > directories. >> >> Well, try doing the following horrible -L : >> -L/usr/local/cross-djgpp/lib/gcc/i586-pc-msdosdjgpp/3.4.6 >> >> because, unlike libc.a, libgcc.a isn't under $(DJDIR)/lib >> at least not in cross- environments -- really do not know >> about a native installation. That was the original issue. > > OK, but still: there should be no problem with having both on the > command line, right? No, no problems. But detecting and correctly using -lgcc was the original goal. Looks like this is becoming a hassle. Revert the patch and document the -lgcc issue instead? (Even though I did like the result of the patch where it does run..)