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=sPFe+0y9PrKP/tMwbPe3tDjCVxlWtd+RrkBvdy3M80Q=;
        b=qof/KOtRGqs+BSXLbcOJFLZlSmmlOVikBjiOgloXUVSbHvbNly579U9OHSslaHj4dw
         AJkbTc/Zc9D5aIxk1cd5KN4RvY1P/sYwh8dG68+cPmCyD7518mBAqbt+F6JAWevvi5Cf
         OAnTzK3BGc2wrwsd0hqqsEOlpoR+0Zvt/zZL+/w2YOxE3fmWdltDKjryxKavGOx/UCWJ
         N6hPOWvVCboLu1lgPCx4NbpIl1rlyaq0hEz4s3fYqygZcCiRm67uqmXSvIKqszAjGy1y
         RqNMhW1aDoHNvBPPnKdRc085+0p7lP7Qu/Vw/VEjCAYDSGJzR/Mv0cKc0iRmo17Xso7M
         tQ8g==
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=sPFe+0y9PrKP/tMwbPe3tDjCVxlWtd+RrkBvdy3M80Q=;
        b=NokVKnmdROh8Tqvvti0jMh1AaGVYZT4/yFrjpbpk8vczHpwq8RCN3iP8M2YzASvTbR
         ReqxoZbiYY5VVkg+qWJ26TptaAZtWBUN/A3xzk7q1dH7GAgJfbUmNB3wE+dWMOkizEYi
         8bZEKa1oKfaeaWGUscH7qaw+qBwATEt/xbdviNolX2I5Gn7pdVgljsvinp7VSJGV0Nfk
         9dD6zk2OMpZ5FItI+7f9N9NALgMcNYIrmuWlbtnL/rtPwyNgGRhEPOcPDKxvaB8M4GTW
         C8Ll6D3uBgP58+KT/ye21ViA6rxXPUmUFkt928e6Hfwe4yvPqx2RMHktqpPMBhT9rusb
         pdYw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AO0yUKV7qzhKb1jEEYUlEfqOuN3TAaYlKFJum8EazRNzCYE70ldR6EU9
	/7TC+Di/4ooYqXdJeDR1yHtBpsPA7Y8q5IK3doeeJVtW
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AK7set9kVQWEVv66GetbOTtE3CHIcDLaf1B8u9EAfBxXp77UVMV3mW7wuDes7IpnVK4q1AHt9e/XH3DITdLzfWuGdcM=
X-Received: by 2002:a5d:6348:0:b0:2bf:b77b:fafc with SMTP id
 b8-20020a5d6348000000b002bfb77bfafcmr9161wrw.475.1675196234044; Tue, 31 Jan
 2023 12:17:14 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAA2C=vCFR6pAv9pWurZRcnhy-ok1rp_c08m4TN5UJJd9dx1qEQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <d67303fd-c302-82cc-bb0d-d1a21640d66f AT gmail DOT com>
 <CAA2C=vDYkF13NYPP_EXGMwzrjhLj2vEq68+-uYPfZOXpqWVRfQ AT mail DOT gmail DOT com>
 <83r0vd78cu DOT fsf AT gnu DOT org> <CAA2C=vCCYsgtbQ5wsgbS3S4G7N+H5zi5DxCyVZLSkEKrSpifMw AT mail DOT gmail DOT com>
 <83o7qh74td DOT fsf AT gnu DOT org> <CAA2C=vDT10ZGfa3Mi2x0syvoT44Q3nfgcMfOwMZF=dM+ruL5OA AT mail DOT gmail DOT com>
 <b73813c5-0b91-6fa4-e4d2-55ddd97955a0 AT gmail DOT com> <CAA2C=vD5O16WsdfW9JqaDevTa2yqypD05fRFG+pW4T=3fq9SjA AT mail DOT gmail DOT com>
 <83o7qg5hah DOT fsf AT gnu DOT org> <CAA2C=vCFR6pAv9pWurZRcnhy-ok1rp_c08m4TN5UJJd9dx1qEQ AT mail DOT gmail DOT com>
From: "Ozkan Sezer (sezeroz AT gmail DOT com) [via djgpp AT delorie DOT com]" <djgpp AT delorie DOT com>
Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2023 23:17:13 +0300
Message-ID: <CAA2C=vDGcOt1cnz9dnoV8neWxXN2S0anc=Pm4kBaV1LBjF3SNA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] dxe3gen: invoke ld/as via gcc
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 1/30/23, Ozkan Sezer <sezeroz AT gmail DOT com> wrote:
> On 1/30/23, Eli Zaretskii (eliz AT gnu DOT org) [via djgpp AT delorie DOT com]
> <djgpp AT delorie DOT com> wrote:
>
>>> The only downside to your patch is that older gcc versions have a
>>> problem handling -T on their command line, which is why I had gone
>>> back.  I don't have a solution for that, buit I honestly haven't
>>> tried very much.
>>>
>>> Eli, DJ: What do you guys think?
>>
>> How serious is the issue with the linker script?  Is that a problem
>> only for GCC 2.95?
>
> As I had said, I only tested with gcc-3.4.6 (cross- under i686-linux)
> and 2.95 (native under dosbox).  Gcc versions 4.x and newer _should_
> be OK. Don't know how gcc 3.0.x, 3.1.x, 3.2.x, and 3.3.x behave.
>
> EDIT: I now tested 3.3.6 and 8.2.0, both cross- under i686-linux, and
> they both work OK with JW's patch.  I now do not know the behavior of
> only gcc 3.0.x, 3.1.x and 3.2.x, and possibly they are not worth much
> to worry about.
>
>>  If so, I'm okay with using GCC and documenting
>> that 2.95 is no longer supported for this purpose.
>
> OK then, no objections from me. Feel free to apply the patch.

Is JW's patch OK'ed? If it is, will you apply it or should I?