Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2001 18:58:49 +0300 (WET) From: Andris Pavenis To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com Subject: Re: gcc-3.0.1 and Win2k In-Reply-To: <6480-Fri24Aug2001183958+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, 24 Aug 2001, Eli Zaretskii wrote: > > Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2001 11:10:28 -0400 > > From: DJ Delorie > > > > > I think there is nothing bad of asking to have GCC and binutils > > > versions to be used to build DJGPP runtime be in a reasonable range. > > > We don't need to support older versions. > > > > I'm OK with saying that djgpp version Z is only supported with gcc > > version X and binutils version Y, or newer, if we must. I'm OK with > > saying gcc version A requires binutils version B or higher too. > > I agree, but this isn't my problem. > > My problem is with using the linker script from the source > distribution in preference to the one from the installed > compiler/library. We never did that before, and I don't see any > reason why we should start now. > > I still don't understand why it is bad to try djgpp-x.djl. That's the > script installed with the compiler, it is used for all the normal > compilations, so it should be the first candidate for a library build. > I understand the wish to pretend that djgpp-x.djl never happened, but > I sincerely don't see how can we do that now. > Then I have a different suggestion: let's remove DJGPP_DJL and all it's traces from src/Makefile.inc Su we'll get behaviour we want (to use default linker script) It will be djgpp-x.djl for gcc-3.0.X while we haven't dropped it or lib/djgpp.djl for earlier GCC versions (unless installation is broken of course). No need for any hacking to reach that Andris PS. I still think we should use linker script from source tree.