X-Authentication-Warning: delorie.com: mail set sender to djgpp-bounces using -f
X-Recipient: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
X-Original-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
        d=gmail.com; s=20120113;
        h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to;
        bh=3cie5SR7NZRlVejPXf4fRYyeSzwbY9jzI3eRlqKOhdM=;
        b=HyYPmjkD11Ic92SuJ3f5a1eO0vwbfXvigrORKOtZRYONLPYUQYRjiGuAnhFUJEtYSO
         kZIYw4MJPY8QIyAFLrc0Vucnv1ODhd715GSOXFypo45VGrpukN8B3ha/BiJxtGziSyOC
         FQwb32ddwrjH6gK6jsEI3pyoOsGS34Fg+qNbVC6cFC4bCukgH4l0w/RiOlE7ScfiuY2Y
         ueqDNMjS2F84dHzmN7jh3mrBmVOsUvHqGHyIh/MZxjL7HnU4TqIWCv6ZXKpY8m7xstan
         JbbBviIk64B2Xt4WSyM1la6Z03mskGy6BnH5MAP8G+QVYV6UgCYdrbAhYOzIuMTxgJ+H
         kNeA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
        d=1e100.net; s=20130820;
        h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date
         :message-id:subject:from:to;
        bh=3cie5SR7NZRlVejPXf4fRYyeSzwbY9jzI3eRlqKOhdM=;
        b=Gqm5Dm+Zxt5HXmYsxYK3xvb3FJ/bqrmoN1pjzJjCpVxVEd8LmPpqQa27dO3vwA+cgZ
         4TKvriEWT9y5eZOwk437iF5tP0Z9EqMY02sMcHqyUSpuSohXEfAydISsAN8hlYQRntuR
         ystIPlGYEe06L1utm4e1rWfyKRPs0yFShREXx/0S9Pkv1uO8CSQTd6ScvM7du2yv8y9u
         BHU+TAIXfuOclU4Ahwbcxorj2XSK2Py0/P86ooMqEK8pmNK31O58jVhkDvE1gBXHzTD2
         4xzbHoQ5rLHO65v4UouMlyTL5xNAkTMqKLAQHvHAoYX59rcHZtgoPvrd6CuWnNAP4KXi
         humQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOPr4FVHaybzNe88VHuZusu92dcVQlC8yZA2nCCufWIDJlAUultreApfHmQNc1LWhgGcR6t0lxaDyX2WPIgaSw==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.107.161.140 with SMTP id k134mr24477375ioe.190.1461920323750;
 Fri, 29 Apr 2016 01:58:43 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <83mvocx0iw.fsf@gnu.org>
References: <83bn4uxben DOT fsf AT gnu DOT org>
	<837ffix9o7 DOT fsf AT gnu DOT org>
	<5722455F DOT 3020906 AT gmx DOT de>
	<831t5py22r DOT fsf AT gnu DOT org>
	<57228FEC DOT 9080408 AT gmx DOT de>
	<83mvocx0iw DOT fsf AT gnu DOT org>
Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2016 11:58:43 +0300
Message-ID: <CAA2C=vALAeu61aJrShXev=LYG1ZK+9Oc2TthMMRyo5Ecg3Upbw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Is DJGPP Emacs still wanted? (was: GCC 3.4.6 -gcoff produces
 executable without line number info)
From: "Ozkan Sezer (sezeroz AT gmail DOT com) [via djgpp AT delorie DOT com]" <djgpp AT delorie DOT com>
To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
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

On 4/29/16, Eli Zaretskii (eliz AT gnu DOT org) [via djgpp AT delorie DOT com]
<djgpp AT delorie DOT com> wrote:
>> Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2016 00:34:20 +0200
>> From: "Juan Manuel Guerrero (juan DOT guerrero AT gmx DOT de) [via
>> djgpp AT delorie DOT com]" <djgpp AT delorie DOT com>
>>
>> If gdb64 is not good enough to debug emacs issues, then we have reach the
>> end
>> of the road of the DJGPP port of emacs.  I have neither the skills nor the
>> time
>> to fix broken coff debug support neither in binutils nor in gdb.
>
> This raises an issue that is IMO important to discuss.  It is
> certainly important for me personally.  Here it is:
>
>   Do we still want/need to build latest Emacs versions with DJGPP?
>
> Maintaining DJGPP compatibility in Emacs sources is a non-trivial
> task.  That compatibility gets regularly broken, and the breakage is
> not apparent and doesn't get fixed until much later, because (AFAIK)
> no one tracks the development sources on a regular basis.
>
> I'm quite sure I'm the only one who builds the DJGPP Emacs and fixes
> any bugs I find for the past several years.  Doing that is a burden
> that slowly becomes heavier and heavier (and I'm not getting younger,
> either).  For example, I am currently trying to fix bugs in the DJGPP
> build of the latest pretest of Emacs 25.1, and I have already invested
> about 3 days of my free time into getting it to build.  I still have a
> significant bug to fix (invoking programs doesn't work), and a couple
> of minor ones.  The issues with being able to debug Emacs with GDB,
> discussed lately, only make the not-so-simple job even more so.
>
> So please tell me if these efforts are still needed.  Does anyone use
> a DJGPP Emacs for their routine work, on DJGPP or anything else?
> Because if no one needs this port, all my efforts to maintain it are
> just a huge waste of time.
>
> We are all volunteers here.  But if a volunteer's work is unused,
> he/she should invest their energy elsewhere.
>
> Please respond.  If no one responds to these questions, I will
> conclude that the DJGPP port of Emacs is not needed anymore, and will
> stop trying to keep it in working order.
>
> Thanks in advance.
>

Speaking for myself, I never needed nor used djgpp port of emacs.

--
O.S.