From: pavenis AT lanet DOT lv
Message-ID: <B0000116405@stargate.astr.lu.lv>
To: Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>, djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2000 13:51:12 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Subject: Re: (patch) updated protoize patch
References: <B0000116385 AT stargate DOT astr DOT lu DOT lv>
In-reply-to: <Pine.SUN.3.91.1000119131450.11954B-100000@is>
X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.12b)
Reply-To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com

On 19 Jan 00, at 13:18, Eli Zaretskii wrote:

> 
> On Wed, 19 Jan 2000 pavenis AT lanet DOT lv wrote:
> 
> > 	WIN95:
> > 		Both protoize and unprotoize doesn't work at all (infinit loop)
> > 
> > So if broken protoize.exe and unprotoize.exe is problem serious 
> > enough, then I'll have to upload update when it will be available.
> 
> Infinite loop seems like a serious problem.  OTOH, most people were doing 
> fine without protoize at all.  So I don't know what to suggest.

Well initially it looked even more black as now. Anyway protoize.exe
was broken even with LFN=Y. Why binaries invoked gcc in loop 
remains unclear as I got once more protoize.exe and unprotoize.exe 
from archives I uploaded and it's no more so. Maybe I had some old
binary in c:/djgpp/bin. 

Seems that I fixed these problems (including avoiding foo.c.save on 
non LFN systems) but I haven't done any tests without LFN support.
Perhaps under DOSEMU when I'll reboot Linux ... (I'm mostly using 
Linux in last time)

> 
> At least we should tell in the announcement that these programs don' 
> always work.  Also, when you have a source patch, it's probably a good 
> idea to post it.  Having a patched executables available somewhere, for 
> those who cannot wait, might also help.
> 

Andris