Date: Sun, 13 Oct 2002 12:40:19 +0200
From: Laurynas Biveinis <lauras AT softhome DOT net>
X-Mailer: The Bat! (v1.61) Personal
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
Message-ID: <567968082.20021013124019@softhome.net>
To: DJGPP Workers <djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com>
Subject: Re: djdev 2.03 refresh mk2 and GCC 3.2 ?
In-Reply-To: <3DA94808.B492B6@phekda.freeserve.co.uk>
References: <10210070203 DOT AA18995 AT clio DOT rice DOT edu>
 <1722041542352 DOT 20021012124935 AT softhome DOT net>
 <3DA94808 DOT B492B6 AT phekda DOT freeserve DOT co DOT uk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 13 Oct 2002 10:39:12.0284 (UTC) FILETIME=[C4DD5DC0:01C272A4]
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


Of course the difference is apparent:

>> gcc -g mkdoc.cc -o ../../hostbin/mkdoc.exe

> gcc -g mkdoc.cc -lstdcxx -o ../../hostbin/mkdoc.exe

> Do you have revision 1.4 of src/mkdoc/Makefile?

Nope. I want to compile 2.03, not 2.04. I have refresh mk1 (as I was
unable to find djlsr203.zip saying it's mk2) with headers from refresh
mk2. So the ability to compile 2.03 with 3.2 still concerns me. If the
changes are minimal, why not to fix djlsr203.zip? (I wish I could
volunteer, unfortunately my free time does not allow that :(

Laurynas