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=iYxj+maXzY6wRsuwiPjQctZluKe6I5o7ZD5h/uRm+WQ=; b=FPrllF4TqTrJQ7mFECjZRwxk7Wil3P0ZbZ/6heJENqmaQb5HL1ZCJ16YHPySqpUS3Q TCdrMMP4H2Lqb59OMxOPS/sMokXQSD2x4cOrMsEVScA1w/qpLwdMq3Ij3AgeY7I5Os9M ji/A9jgmolQb3iaQVxGfgXHU0FaHSVEtHmMs9FZaTbV1MV4B0RXtvXkWEiX3AXYF5iNa VqO/krFEtn99Hu/U6QzhSuRyMDgWVNM65wIYmTnmeizJ3lehZd1le8f/48Xfd367QRyL S1SHqSGNuLGwmQAb+g8wgFnmTsUs31ylRQ6UOMKqJNPY4cqM16TI93cwDODB9ekzehR+ ozqA== 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=iYxj+maXzY6wRsuwiPjQctZluKe6I5o7ZD5h/uRm+WQ=; b=UWMBFM21aUlq+YQJdhw+IUso1SUyDLWTrCebj9KuzCgMrJ3cvfcdZRFaZGHoZ+eps4 W03yG1G3iOikd6hd5GYfY7jkz1PRhfAQGaxlJJ0g8nCug5mBKuUrHtCRUkyC28O/rlTi OrUggTQ7o8icSEW33Fil3AjZJ6HIe1ySGV+pkhhyelvEKY9amfVTMpgYTLqcbwRhmXb6 g2HjvNxgg331R6T4c7Fk4WxILnm22xsjyfogy4upJ1yydyCHHE7vBOddS6QsdGZa84ck XJUtFK47T+Ra0P3+8KWVg4loGLaCXDLN2lK20rPTsZeYIBcyibRlm+Mo9/xCUqhj2U91 G/7A== X-Gm-Message-State: AFqh2kq9n4SyCjZ5YMLcIoWrqkhPCp+aZ0MnhCa2TKgkBhv7ulnMUefQ GIQRftR9WRycM5sTRl22X5NtV6jelSjdtgXx9+XKmIzP X-Google-Smtp-Source: AMrXdXsNSJqfJpzSAKQuAwkwJwQwdsbAl4wsfcVuasUBiOSnZMMj6RQDHUU4pCdUJGB/NLif4ad69WQwELQO1OkAeSc= X-Received: by 2002:a5d:5185:0:b0:2bd:d222:68b3 with SMTP id k5-20020a5d5185000000b002bdd22268b3mr940646wrv.95.1674905298512; Sat, 28 Jan 2023 03:28:18 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <83v8kr9bye.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> <835ycravjo DOT fsf AT gnu DOT org> <83zga39fil DOT fsf AT gnu DOT org> <83v8kr9bye 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 14:28:17 +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 >> Note that additional "-Tdjgpp-x.djl" at the end which screws up everything. > > What if you use both -T and -Xlinker -T? IOW, pass -T both to GCC and > to the linker directly? That works with gcc-3.4.6, but not with gcc-2.95: adding -v to command line shows that gcc295 invokes ld with -Tdjgpp.djl -T dxe.ld > If this still doesn't work, can you show the output of "gcc -dumpspecs" > from GCC 2.95? Attached as 295SPECS.TXT >>> 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. > > But -L doesn't contradict that goal, does it? I'm trying to understand your question and how you see things: What I'm saying is, needing to add an additional -L/some/path for -lgcc is really counter-intuitive and unexpected. I guess someone has to run gcc -print-libgcc-file-name to manually detect it and than add it to his own command line. >> 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..) > > I'm sorry I'm causing the hassle, No, you really are not. > but can we please not give up just > yet, and see if we can have the cake and eat it, too? OK :)