X-Authentication-Warning: delorie.com: mail set sender to djgpp-workers-bounces using -f
Message-ID: <4661037A.5010204@iki.fi>
Date: Sat, 02 Jun 2007 08:43:22 +0300
From: Andris Pavenis <andris DOT pavenis AT iki DOT fi>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.0 (X11/20070326)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Subject: Re: BUGs
References: <200706012331 DOT l51NVlVt021989 AT brother DOT ludd DOT ltu DOT se> <200706020008 DOT l5208GDU000561 AT envy DOT delorie DOT com>
In-Reply-To: <200706020008.l5208GDU000561@envy.delorie.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X--MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information
X--MailScanner: Found to be clean
X--MailScanner-From: andris DOT pavenis AT iki DOT fi
X-Spam-Status: No
Reply-To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com

DJ Delorie kirjoitti:
>> Bug 000386:
> 
> Might be the usual XP issues, requiring 2.04.
> 
>> Bug 000377:
> 
> If the COFF header is valid, it's a UPX bug.  But that doesn't mean
> the header *is* valid.

I closed it. It was about old problem in UPX, which is fixed
for a long time now.

> 
>> Bug 000385:

Without additionally feedback it is impossible to say where the
problem is. Additionally there is Makefile for compiling GRX
examples. If that compiles them OK without unresolved references,
but user own different attampt  does not, then it's a user problem.

Of course there also could be a broken installation,

>> Bug 000379:

Perhaps the reason is that bccbgi expects Borland BGI fonts to
be present, but they do not come with GRX due to licensing
problems.

>> Bug 000378:

I guess, one should come back here and close own bug as grx-2.4.7 is
available and it compiles OK with gcc-4.1.1 for DJGPP (Fedora 7,
DOSEMU-1.4.0, FreeDOS-1.0)

>> Bug 000373:
>> Sounds like a grx bug. I''ll close soon, if no opposition.

Added comment (about grx-2.4.7 and gcc-4.1.1 being compatible)

> 
> With a polite comment, of course.  It's not a bug, it's just that gcc
> 4 is more strict than gcc 3.
> 
>> Bug 000375:
>> Seems to be user error. Mixing 16-bit and 32-bit code.  I''ll close
>> soon, if no opposition.
> 
> Even if the user is doing something wrong, it does look like the
> linker is doing something wrong also.
> 
>> Bug 000374:
>> Bug in gcc.  I''ll close soon, if no opposition.
> 
> Actually, it's not a bug - it's intentional.  libstdc++ uses
> i486-specific instructions to implement atomic operations, so we
> (djgpp) have to decide if we're going to continue supporting i386
> platforms by default.  If so, someone needs to tweak the libstdc++
> configury.
>