X-Authentication-Warning: delorie.com: mail set sender to djgpp-bounces using -f
X-Recipient: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
Date: Sat, 28 Apr 2012 10:26:28 +0300
From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT gnu DOT org>
Subject: Re: Difficulties compiling emacs with gcc 4.6.2
In-reply-to: <9cd6f1d7-ec21-431c-8b7e-44072b4baf02@f27g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>
X-012-Sender: halo1 AT inter DOT net DOT il
To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
Message-id: <83r4v871wb.fsf@gnu.org>
References: <201204090011 DOT 41565 DOT juan DOT guerrero AT gmx DOT de> <201204212330 DOT 14769 DOT juan DOT guerrero AT gmx DOT de> <83d370h41v DOT fsf AT gnu DOT org> <201204251935 DOT 54557 DOT juan DOT guerrero AT gmx DOT de> <83zk9zemcd DOT fsf AT gnu DOT org> <8e234c5c-6499-438e-af82-a27acc6430d6 AT m13g2000yqi DOT googlegroups DOT com> <83wr53edd7 DOT fsf AT gnu DOT org> <76d604cb-2559-414c-95e5-06504006d6af AT c4g2000yqj DOT googlegroups DOT com> <83bomeaofq DOT fsf AT gnu DOT org> <6e2013e9-bc74-488f-b6a2-97944d4079c6 AT r9g2000yqd DOT googlegroups DOT com> <83y5phhdsq DOT fsf AT gnu DOT org> <9cd6f1d7-ec21-431c-8b7e-44072b4baf02 AT f27g2000yqc DOT googlegroups DOT com>
Reply-To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
Errors-To: nobody AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To: listserv AT delorie DOT com
Precedence: bulk

> From: Rugxulo <rugxulo AT gmail DOT com>
> Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2012 20:29:35 -0700 (PDT)
> 
> > Guess who are "the Windows dudes" these days ;-)
> 
> Yeah, I remember you said something vaguely like that once, and I was
> (barely) surprised. You still use good ol' XP, right?

Yes, XP.  Otherwise, I'd need a separate box just to run DJGPP
programs and build them.

> Is that all for "bidi" support or whatever?

What is "that" in this case?  The XP box is my main development
machine, both for DJGPP and for Emacs.  I did develop the
bidirectional editing support for Emacs on this box, with only minimal
help of a GNU/Linux machine (via PuTTY).  But that's not the only
thing I did on it, or the only reason for having it.  On my daytime
job I need to use Windows, so I need a working development environment
that I'm familiar with on that system.  That is why I switched to
MinGW.

> > > However, from a quick search, it seems the big problem to them is 8.3
> > > filenames. I know you probably wouldn't like the idea, but I'd rather
> > > rely on DOSLFN (or, if hating VFAT, StarLFN) instead of dropping the
> > > port entirely.
> >
> > Requiring a Windows platform for building will probably be the first
> > step, yes.
> 
> I don't see how you have to require Windows here, just DOSLFN (or
> StarLFN or similar). You could just as easily require DOSEMU or
> VirtualBox + FreeDOS + DOSLFN or whatever.

It is easier, and also more reliable, to require Windows.  If DOSLFN
also works, so much the better.