From: pavenis AT lanet DOT lv
To: DJ Delorie <dj AT delorie DOT com>, djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Date: Sat, 25 Aug 2001 14:40:05 +0300
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Subject: Re: gcc-3.0.1 and Win2k
Cc: Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
Message-ID: <3B87B8C5.16717.42C1CA@localhost>
In-reply-to: <200108250135.VAA16071@envy.delorie.com>
References: <4634-Fri24Aug2001204242+0300-eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.12c)
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 24 Aug 2001, at 21:35, DJ Delorie wrote:

> 
> > Fine with me, but the reason we use the script name is that we invoke
> > the linker directly in some cases, not through GCC.  Does anyone
> > remember why is this done, why don't we use GCC to link?  DJ?
> 
> I don't recall exactly, but it might be a combination of not trusting
> gcc to use our newly created files (and nothing else) and perhaps gcc
> not doing the right thing back then anyway.  IIRC, we've been
> converting things to just using gcc directly as we trip over them.

It we want to use installed linker script we still need to specify it 
explicitly (My note yesterday was wrong).

However there are 2 C++ files which potentially could cause harm, but 
they don't now:
	mkdoc.cc  - It's compiled and linked with gcc, so defaults for gcc
		is being used and as result all should be Ok
	emu387.cc - it also doesn't cause trouble

Andris