From: Andris Pavenis <pavenis AT latnet DOT lv>
To: Laurynas Biveinis <laurynas DOT biveinis AT mif DOT vu DOT lt>
Subject: Re: 2.03 vs 3.2
Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2002 16:52:04 +0300
User-Agent: KMail/1.4.7
Cc: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
References: <51168290418 DOT 20021014163221 AT softhome DOT net> <200210160708 DOT 06643 DOT pavenis AT latnet DOT lv> <159422558547 DOT 20021017151009 AT mif DOT vu DOT lt>
In-Reply-To: <159422558547.20021017151009@mif.vu.lt>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
  charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Disposition: inline
Message-Id: <200210171652.04685.pavenis@latnet.lv>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by delorie.com id g9HDpwE12368
Reply-To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com

On Thursday 17 October 2002 16:10, Laurynas Biveinis wrote:
> >> - Use djgpp-x.djl
> >
> > Don't do so.
>
> I use djgpp-x.djl just as 2.04 does; together with checks to choose
> betweem djgpp.djl and djgpp-x.djl. Is that wrong? If so, then how the
> very same code in 2.04 is correct?
>
> (Somehow I got feeling that I'm missing something very important :)
>
> BTW, what's the story with linker scripts? Weren't they supposed to go
> away?

If You will change now to djgpp-x.djl in djdev, then next time when
GCC will break due to linker script, I (or somebody else) will have 
to change name again. I included linker script with different name in gcc
archives for DJGPP to workaround incompatibilities, which appeared in
newer GCC versions. It seems that some additional modifications will be
needed for GCC-3.3 when it will be out. 

djgpp.djl is also used by gcc-2.95.3 we still have in DJGPP distributions.
So we must not change it's name, but only keep it as possible in sync
with one I included in latest GCC binaries.

Andris