From: snowball3 AT usa DOT net Message-Id: <199812091631.QAA66208@out5.ibm.net> To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com Date: Wed, 9 Dec 1998 11:31:41 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: Minor problem building binutils snapshot References: <199812082148 DOT VAA24136 AT out4 DOT ibm DOT net> In-reply-to: X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.01d) Reply-To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com > The problem is in the ported Bash: it is mightily confused by a script > which has mixed DOS/Unix-style EOL format (but doesn't have any > problems with scripts that consistently use either style). I didn't > have time to look into the Bash sources, but I'd guess it computes the > EOL style at the beginning, by looking at the first few lines, and > then uses that to seek into the script. I know this is stating the obvious, but it would be nice if both could be used in the same script. >In my setup, configure script is run by a > batch file anyway, so there's no problem to add a line to that batch > file which runs utod. I use a modified version of the batch file from the 2.8 binutils. I added calls to dtou in the batch file that calls ends up calling configure and everything worked out fine. Thanks! I still can't figure out why I didn't run into the problem compiling Oct. 8th snapshot. One of these days I'll have to get a Linux setup like Andris described in his reply. My experience at least with my 166 mhz machine is compiling binutils doesn't take all that long with egcs 1.1. And with egcs 1.1.1, compiling is noticeably faster than with egcs 1.1. So my present setup is working out ok for me. Mark --- Mark Elbrecht snowball3 AT usa DOT net http://members.xoom.com/snowball3/