Date:	Thu, 10 Jun 1999 11:00:22 +0300 (IDT)
From:	Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
X-Sender:	eliz AT is
To:	pavenis AT lanet DOT lv
cc:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Subject:	Re: prerelease of gcc-2.95
In-Reply-To:	<B0000089998@stargate.astr.lu.lv>
Message-ID:	<Pine.SUN.3.91.990610105935.17697K-100000@is>
MIME-Version:	1.0
Reply-To:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To:	listserv AT delorie DOT com

On Wed, 9 Jun 1999 pavenis AT lanet DOT lv wrote:

> I know nothing about chill.The compiler and runtime library builds 
> for DJGPP without problem but I don't have any example to test 
> and don't know whether we need it at all.
> 
> About java support in gcc. There is no runtime library in egcs 
> source archive. There is separate runtime library available from
> sourceware.cygnus.com but as I understand it's in rather 
> develoment stage. Should we build binary archives for java.

I think if the original Makefile installs the chill and java support
when you say "make install" without having to invoke configure with
special options, then the DJGPP binaries should include that as well.

The reasoning for this is that anything that's good enough for a
typical Unix installation, is good enough for DJGPP.

It can be very frustrating for a user to hear that EGCS supports java,
only to find out that the downloaded binaries left it out.  Building
GCC is not for the faint of heart, as we all know, so the usual wavers
(donwload-the-sources-and-build-them-yourself) don't apply here.

> I also haven't done any tests with it.

I think simply telling that you couldn't test it in the README is good
enough to cover this.

- Raw text -