Date: Fri, 5 Sep 1997 09:38:10 +0200 (METDST)
From: Robert Hoehne <robert DOT hoehne AT mathematik DOT tu-chemnitz DOT de>
To: Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
Cc: DJGPP workers <djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com>, DJ Delorie <dj AT delorie DOT com>
Subject: Re: Compiling .cpp files (another hint of the week)
In-Reply-To: <Pine.SUN.3.91.970904204817.27525Q-100000@is>
Message-Id: <Pine.HPP.3.95q.970905092951.28638A-100000@newton.mathematik.tu-chemnitz.de>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, 4 Sep 1997, Eli Zaretskii wrote:

> 
> On Thu, 4 Sep 1997, Robert Hoehne wrote:
> 
> > To fix the bug in gcc with the incorrect handling of of the
> > -dumpbase argument when compiling C++ source files which have
> > an other suffix than .cc, symply cut the text below and append
> > it to you specs file (normally %DJDIR%/lib/specs).
> 
> Did you send this to DJ?  It seems like a good candidate to be included 
> in the next snapshot of v2.02.
> 

No, until now not. But this is probably a good idea. So here
now also releated question:

Should we include this in v2.02?

Would it be better for next DJGPP distributions to move
the specs file from djdevXXX.zip to gccXXXXb.zip? This
is because the specs file is at first meaningless without
gcc and as second this makes it possible, to make changes
in the specs file and distributing it with a new gcc package
without getting complains?

Of course there might be a problem when switching to
a new DJGPP version which should be reflected in the
predefined CPP defines, but for this I think we can
find another solution.


And to DJ: Have you the addition to the specs file from
c.o.m.d. or should I resend it here?

Robert