Date:	Wed, 13 Nov 2002 02:59:44 -0500
From:	2boxers <2boxers AT comcast DOT net>
Subject:	Re: linux-x-djgpp revised howto
To:	djgpp-workers-ml <djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com>
Cc:	Andris Pavenis <pavenis AT latnet DOT lv>
Message-id:	<006701c28aea$a11fee80$021ca8c0@helm>
MIME-version:	1.0
X-MIMEOLE:	Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4910.0300
X-Mailer:	Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4807.1700
X-Priority:	3
X-MSMail-priority:	Normal
Reply-To:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com

I went through the steps in the howto again to check for accuracy. ( 3 total
builds against the HOWTO now)

using 2.95.3 as the native CC w/djcrx203
using 3.2 as the native CC w/djcrx203
using 3.2 as the native CC w/djcrx204_alpha

All three built as expected using the steps from the HOWTO.

I am debating whether or not to add some debug info stripping commands to
the HOWTO, like done in the shell script, but I am not sure there is a
reason for it.  Isn't the net reduction in binary size the same if you strip
the final binary regardless of whether or not you remove the debugging
information from libgcc.a, libg2c.a, libstdcxx.a, and libsupcxx.a?

Also, I would like to test the compiler with the testsuite.  Any suggestions
for doing this?

Andris, have you tried to run the xgcc against the testsuite?

Charles

- Raw text -