Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2001 20:30:48 +0300 (WET) From: Andris Pavenis To: Eli Zaretskii Cc: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com Subject: Re: gcc-3.0.1 and Win2k In-Reply-To: <8296-Thu23Aug2001195012+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, 23 Aug 2001, Eli Zaretskii wrote: > > From: pavenis AT lanet DOT lv > > Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2001 17:29:08 +0300 > > > > So please test. > > Building programs seems to work just fine, but I hit a problem with > building the CVS library. The problem is that we have this in > src/makefile.inc: > > DJGPP_DJL := $(shell $(CROSS_GCC) $(GCC_OPT) -print-file-name=djgpp.djl) > > This asks the compiler for the full name of the linker script, but > since the script is called djgpp.djl, this command cannot pick > djgpp-x.djl which comes with the GCC distribution. That means the C++ > programs compiled as part of the library might crash, no? djgpp.dlj from current CVS version of DJGPP of OK for gcc-3.0.1. For gcc-3.0.1 I took linker script from binutils-2.11.2. One may have problems building from original djlsr203.zip but that is not supported anyway. If we would have a way how to enforce users not to use binutils-2.10.X or binutils-2.11 then I would be like to drop linker script in GCC archives. But we don't have such power. So I think we should keep it for some time. I myself am usually building CVS version of DJGPP with gcc-3.0.X and all works Ok. > > Also, I understood that users should remove or rename lib/djgpp.djl, > in which case the library build will fail. > All should work "out of box" if one builds CVS version of DJGPP with gcc-3.0.1. As I said lib/djgpp.dlj from current CVS is compatible with gcc-3.0.1 Current CVS version of DJGPP should still compatible with old binutils versions (like 2.8.1 or 2.9.1) although I haven't tested that for a rather long time. So we should not remove lib/djgpp.djl yet Andris