Mail Archives: djgpp-workers/1998/02/01/20:45:34
Andrew Crabtree wrote :
>
> > > Why not have is say i[3456]86-*-*dosdjgpp*) ?
> > Or just i[3456]86-*-*djgpp*
>
> the only place that uses the ix86-pc-msdosdjgpp is in the patch file
> that Robert put together for binutils. I don't think if you get the
> latest binutils source from pub/GNU that it includes those changes yet.
My patches were applied shortly after releasing binutils 2.8.1. You
can check this, if you take any newer binutils snapshot which will
compile without any changes at the source files (at least the last
one which I tried).
Of course I made the patch originally for binutils, but since the
config.guess script is a common used script by nearly all GNU programs,
it will be available in the future for mostly any GNU package.
As an example, gcc 2.8.0 has already the patch for config.guess
(and of course also the newer binutils snapshots)
And please, as I made the patch for config.guess, we discussed this
topic some time also with RMS until the name i[3456]86-pc-msdosdjgpp
was created. So please try not to create new names again, because I
think we can live with it.
> generic as suggested above, but we just need to make sure that
> binutils, gcc, and egcs all match. Its not even too much trouble on unix, you
When all they use the same config.guess, then there is only the need
for (minor) changes in configure.in (like I made already for gcc).
Robert
--
******************************************************
* email: Robert Hoehne <robert DOT hoehne AT gmx DOT net> *
* Post: Am Berg 3, D-09573 Dittmannsdorf, Germany *
* WWW: http://www.tu-chemnitz.de/~sho/rho *
******************************************************
- Raw text -