Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2001 09:13:16 +0300 (WET) From: Andris Pavenis To: Eli Zaretskii Cc: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com Subject: Re: Comments on GCC 3.0 distribution In-Reply-To: <2593-Thu12Jul2001220335+0300-eliz@is.elta.co.il> Message-ID: 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 Thu, 12 Jul 2001, Eli Zaretskii wrote: > > From: pavenis AT lanet DOT lv > > Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2001 18:48:35 +0300 > > > > Maybe. Anyway I would want to hear some more feedback about > > binaries of gcc-3.0. I built them using current (at that time) CVS > > version of DJGPP. > > Is it wise to distribute such a major part of the development > toolchain that is based on a relatively untested library? For > example, we've just learned that it will be unable to read any files > on Windows 2000 due to the FAT32 bit in _open. > > There might be other problems and incompatibilities, for example in > the symlink support. > I think use of DJGPP on Win2K is in alpha stage now. I don't think we can rate it higher now With non modified djdev203 we should have the same NTVDM crash problem (on nested DPMI tasks) anyway. I used patched libc to build gcc-3.0 (patch Eli send to workaround NTVDM crashing problem). Now we have another problem with opening files under Win2K but as I think it's not new, only it was not diagnosed correctly earlier it seems that part of problems of latest versions of RHIDE under Win2K was due to the same problem : RHIDE was not able to read files (including djgpp.env) under Win2K Andris