From: pavenis AT lanet DOT lv
Message-ID: <B0000097808@stargate.astr.lu.lv>
To: "Mark E." <snowball3 AT bigfoot DOT com>, djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Date: Wed, 11 Aug 1999 11:10:35 +0300
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Subject: Re: patch for i386go32.c
In-reply-to: <199908101850.SAA70660@out2.ibm.net>
X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.11)
Reply-To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To: listserv AT delorie DOT com
Precedence: bulk

On 10 Aug 99, at 14:51, Mark E. wrote:

> [This one is to djgpp-workers only.]
> 
> > > However, I'll note that none of the other targets see the need to
> > > define __EH_FRAME_{BEGIN,END}__, or to add the LONG(0).  That's
> > > because other targets use the gcc crtbegin/crtend support.  Why not
> > > make DJGPP work like other gcc targets?
> > > 
> 
> I've searched the DJGPP sources and I can't turn up any references to 
> __EH_FRAME_{BEGIN,END}__. The one test I made using g++ exceptions shows that 
> deleting the __EH* symbols and LONG(0) made no difference. So perhaps these symbols 
> are safe to delete?
> 

The following code fragments from src/libc/crt0/crt0.S are "guilty" in 
that:  lines 48-66 and 295-301 (in current CVS version)

The related structure is registrated (__register_frame_info) and as 
result the corresponding definitions from djgpp.djl are not used.

The problem is that all should work also without these things in 
crt0.S (when I did these my tests I mentioned before it didn't work 
as I expected)

Andris