Date: Wed, 3 Jan 2001 16:43:26 +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: Stability of new long arg passing code?
In-Reply-To: <3A532029.B50F24B1@softhome.net>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.91.1010103164122.3654C-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 Wed, 3 Jan 2001, Laurynas Biveinis wrote:

> No, sometimes ld.exe complains too. So it says that there is 
> a bug in compiler driver, the gcc.exe. Because my ld.exe is
> compiled before CMDLINE changes.

It at least means that the CMDLINE changes in c1args.c (which look at 
CMDLINE in the enviornment) are not the reason for the problem.

> Now I see that various programs involved in compilation
> complain about options which they shouldn't get at all, like '-c' for cc1.exe,
> '-W' for ld.exe and so on. So this is a GCC bug.

The question now is whether this is in GCC's application code or 
something in dosexec which gets linked into GCC.