From: sandmann AT clio DOT rice DOT edu (Charles Sandmann)
Message-Id: <10209171955.AA05733@clio.rice.edu>
Subject: Re: V2.04 work list (was... status page)
To: pavenis AT lanet DOT lv (Andris Pavenis)
Date: Tue, 17 Sep 2002 14:55:24 -0500 (CDT)
Cc: acottrel AT ihug DOT com DOT au (Andrew Cottrell),
   rich AT phekda DOT freeserve DOT co DOT uk (Richard Dawe), djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
In-Reply-To: <Pine.A41.4.05.10209172048080.9364-100000@ieva06> from "Andris Pavenis" at Sep 17, 2002 08:59:28 PM
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.5 PL2]
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
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

> About UPX: I'm using it already for some time (binaries in last GCC and
> binutils packages for DJGPP are compressed woth UPX). At least I haven't
> heard too much objections.

I agree with using UPX for the next release.  Currently the 2.04 alpha
size is around 2.5Mb vs 1.5Mb for the 2.03 release.

> Trying to build some days old GCC-3.3 CVS snapshot. Some of issues are
> also djdev20X related:
> 
> default stack size (512k) is too small even for compiling C compiler.

Should this be a GCC build issue (updated build files) or bigger stack
for all DJGPP apps?  At least C++ apps built with GCC 3.x might need
the bigger stacks?  A 1 Mb stack is small on today's machines.  On older
Win 95 boxes might cause problems on small memory machines.  I don't 
think a big stack would cause problems with CWSDPMI since we would
normally never touch it.

These (and the linker script, and ...) are the issues I'd like to make
sure we have fixed for the V2.04 release.