X-Authentication-Warning: delorie.com: mail set sender to djgpp-workers-bounces using -f
X-Recipient: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.2 (2011-06-06) on eggs.gnu.org
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=disabled
	version=3.3.2
Date: Sat, 05 May 2018 10:03:29 +0300
Message-Id: <83r2mqshxa.fsf@gnu.org>
From: "Eli Zaretskii (eliz AT gnu DOT org) [via djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com]" <djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com>
To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
In-reply-to: <558b5ff2-71df-e556-a874-7acbb264c84a@iki.fi>
	(djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com)
Subject: Re: gcc-8.1.0 packages for testing
References: <0244cff9-6176-8aec-bbc2-6fc49602c295 AT iki DOT fi> <558b5ff2-71df-e556-a874-7acbb264c84a AT iki DOT fi>
X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic]
X-Received-From: 2001:4830:134:3::e
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

> From: "Andris Pavenis (andris DOT pavenis AT iki DOT fi) [via djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com]" <djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com>
> Date: Fri, 4 May 2018 21:28:19 +0300
> 
> - no more -gcoff: is it necessary for anything except building Emacs for DJGPP. As far as I 
> remember building Emacs work with really old gcc versions only

Yes, I use GCC 3.4.6, FWIW, because later versions don't produce good
COFF debug info even if they support -gcoff.  I've recently added a
note about this to Emacs's DJGPP build instructions in the
msdos/INSTALL file.

> Possible additional change, which I would like to see in: support of NTFS when SFN creating is 
> disabled by Windows registry setting. Currently attempting open file which has only LFN but not SFN 
> fails with EACCES. I myself do not have all required environments for testing such changes

AFAIU, _open.c tries to use the LFN open-file call if the one with SFN
fails, so I'm not sure I understand where it fails in the case you
mention.  Can you write a short test program and see where it fails
inside _open.c (assuming that's where it fails)?