Date: Sun, 19 Nov 2000 12:10:06 +0200 (IST)
From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
X-Sender: eliz AT is
To: Tim Van Holder <tim DOT van DOT holder AT pandora DOT be>
cc: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Subject: RE: Help: Isn't libdbg the debugging version of libc?
In-Reply-To: <NBBBIOJKJBNCHJBEKHLOKEPOCBAA.tim.van.holder@pandora.be>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.91.1001119120050.13162A-100000@is>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Reply-To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Errors-To: nobody AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To: listserv AT delorie DOT com
Precedence: bulk


On Sun, 19 Nov 2000, Tim Van Holder wrote:

> # Handle systems without djgpp.djl (recent binutils don't need it)
> ifneq ($(DJGPP_DJL),djgpp.djl)
> DJGPP_DJL := -T $(subst \,/,$(DJGPP_DJL))
> else
> DJGPP_DJL :=

No, this is wrong: we don't want the library to be built or tested 
without djgpp.djl.  Ever.

Users are free to do whatever they want with their production 
installation, but when they build or test the library, we *require* them 
to do so in the stock development environment, including djgpp.djl that 
comes with djdevNNN.zip.  The linker script is important because it sets 
up memory layout and special sections, and we don't want the library to 
be screwed by using any other configuration, such as the one built into 
Binutils (which might be out of date, depending on where the latest port 
was done).

Since building the library requires to unpack djdev in a separate place, 
and djdev comes with djgpp.djl, I don't see how the missing linker script 
in the production tree should be relevant to the issue at hand.