Date: Sun, 14 Nov 1999 08:49:19 +0200 (IST)
From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
X-Sender: eliz AT is
To: Laurynas Biveinis <lauras AT softhome DOT net>
cc: DJGPP Workers <djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com>
Subject: Re: GCC porting questions
In-Reply-To: <382C1E95.AE7530D1@softhome.net>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.91.991114084902.14510N-100000@is>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
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 Fri, 12 Nov 1999, Laurynas Biveinis wrote:

> I built GCC 2.95.2 with symlink support and resulting binary supports 
> symlinks too. However, I think that building process itself could benefit
> from symlinks, because in readme.DJGPP it is said:
> -------
>    in such parts Win95 DPMI server can take. Second reason was to
>    simulate bootstraping gcc which was impossible in other way due to
>    absence of fully functional symbolic links.
> -------
> So, where should I start looking ?

I'm not sure you should bother.

If I understand correctly from the fragment you cited, it pertains to
the special kind of GCC build called ``bootstrap''.  This is done on a
system where no previous version of GCC exists, and so the first
compile is done using the system C compiler.

This situation cannot exist in the DJGPP world.  So we don't need to
support bootstraping.