From: Andrew Crabtree Message-Id: <199708151352.AA209263146@typhoon.rose.hp.com> Subject: Re: gxx ?s / 2.7.2.3 ?s To: broeker AT physik DOT rwth-aachen DOT de (Hans-Bernhard Broeker) Date: Fri, 15 Aug 1997 6:52:26 PDT Cc: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com In-Reply-To: ; from "Hans-Bernhard Broeker" at Aug 15, 97 11:51 am Precedence: bulk > > > Is that > > > correct? The reason I ask is that I have received bug reports regarding > > > gxx from the latest pcg snapshots. > > ??? Does that mean you have a 'gxx.exe' in those snapshots? If so, it's > probably a bad idea to include it at all. But I may be wrong here. Yes. The new configure routines definitely create a g++. The only advantage I can think of is that it doesn't require you to have gcc on your system as well, since it duplicates the functionality. g++.c is actually a symbolic link to gcc.c. > This sure looks as if you actually use a gxx build by the gcc sources, > i.e. the equivalent of the unix 'g++' binary. That's really not too > good an idea, I suspect. The 'gxx' of DJGPP is a specialised product, > and you shouldn't substitute the Unix-borne g++ for it. Whether a good idea or not I already distributed it this way. Now I'm just trying to figure out how to get things working again. I must say I like not getting the 'linker file not used' warnings when using gxx -c. Andrew -- _______ ___________________________________________________________ / Andrew Crabtree / Workgroup Networks Division ____ ___ / Hewlett-Packard / / / / Roseville, CA __/ __/ _____/ 916/785-1675 / andrewc AT rosemail DOT rose DOT hp DOT com ___________ __/ _____________________________________________________