Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2001 10:34:16 +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: <2110-Fri13Jul2001103230+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 Fri, 13 Jul 2001, Eli Zaretskii wrote: > > Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2001 09:13:16 +0300 (WET) > > From: Andris Pavenis > > > > > > 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 > > That's true, but why make the situation worse by introducing > additional bugs? Binaries seems to be stable enough on Win9X. I haven't get a serious trouble with them. Of course Win2K is a different beast and I don't have possibility to test anything with it. > > > With non modified djdev203 we should have the same NTVDM crash > > problem (on nested DPMI tasks) anyway. > > I didn't meant to say you should use stock djdev203. I think there > are a few patches that you should apply to djdev203 to make GCC 3.0 > better, but still stable enough to be trusted. > > I suggest we discuss what patches to apply to djdev203, to build GCC > with the patched library. If you agree, I'm willing to post a list of > patches I'd recommend, as a starting point for such a discussion. Ok. Anyway I don't promise to use them in 2 nearest weeks. > > I used patched libc to build > > gcc-3.0 (patch Eli send to workaround NTVDM crashing problem). > > This is one of the patches we should IMHO apply to djdev203. It needs > to be applied anyway, even if you build with the CVS version of the > library, since I didn't yet commit it, pending final evaluation by the > person who suggested the idea. > > > 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 is new with the CVS library; it didn't exist in djdev203, because, > as far as ANdrew's analysis shows so far, it was caused by adding the > FAT32 bit to the open mode passed to the OpenFile function. > > > 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 > > Wasn't the latest RHIDE built with the CVS library as well, or at > least with FAT32 patches? If not, if RHIDE was built with stock > djdev203, we might have another problem on our hands. > I don't remeber exactly but I think it was build using CVS version of library (I never applied FAT32 patches separatelly) Andris