X-Authentication-Warning: new-smtp1.ihug.com.au: Host p400-tnt1.syd.ihug.com.au [203.173.129.146] claimed to be acceleron
Message-ID: <006701c111d4$65af97f0$0a02a8c0@acceleron>
From: "Andrew Cottrell" <acottrel AT ihug DOT com DOT au>
To: <djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com>, "Andris Pavenis" <pavenis AT lanet DOT lv>
Cc: <djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com>
References: <Pine DOT SUN DOT 3 DOT 91 DOT 1010718130735 DOT 13783A-100000 AT is>
Subject: Re: Comments on GCC 3.0 distribution
Date: Sat, 21 Jul 2001 21:00:46 +1000
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4522.1200
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200
Reply-To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com

Eli & Andris,

If you are trying to get DJGPP to work on Windows 2000 then all of the other
essential GNU and MISC apps may also need to be re-built. See me other email
with regards to Make as an example.

I remember the following type of suggestion being proposed a number of
months ago, but I cannot remember the outcome:
   Under the V2, V2GNU, V2TK.... directories make a subdirectory called V203
and move all of the existing binary ZIP file into the V203 directory. In teh
V2, V2GNU, V2Tk directories put the re-built binary ZIP files when they are
re-built and delete the old binary zip file in teh V203 directory.

Another suggestion is to add a readme.txt file to each of the V2, V2GNU,
V2TK directories that details what version of DJGPP the binary distribution
was built with, for example <2.0.3, 2.0.3, 2.0.4 etc.

In either case the non technical end users will still make mistakes.

Regards,
Andrew

----- Original Message -----
From: "Eli Zaretskii" <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
To: "Andris Pavenis" <pavenis AT lanet DOT lv>
Cc: <djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com>
Sent: Wednesday, July 18, 2001 8:17 PM
Subject: Re: Comments on GCC 3.0 distribution


>
> On Fri, 13 Jul 2001, Andris Pavenis wrote:
>
> > > 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.
>
> Here's the list of patches I suggest to apply to djdev203 for building
> GCC 3.0:
>
>   - the patch to _rename to solve problems on Windows 2000 and ME
>
>   - the patch to _put_path to avoid creating the /dev/env directory
>
>   - the patch to dpmiexcp.c and dosexec.c to work around NTVDM crashes on
>     Windows 2000
>
> The last one will be a bit tricky, since dosexec.c underwent quite a few
> other changes, which I don't recommend to use in GCC 3.0 yet.
>
> I compiled the above list by reading wc204.txi, so if some important
> changes aren't there, I might have missed them.  Also, I intentionally
> omitted several patches that are important, but not for GCC.
>
> Comments?
>