Mail Archives: djgpp/2015/06/11/22:00:06
Hi,
On Thursday, June 11, 2015 at 5:29:55 PM UTC-5, Frank Sapone (emoaddict15 AT hates DOT spam) wrote:
>
> >> I made an entirely new DJGPP dir, got my paths all that, etc. setup
> >> properly and afaik I have all the required tools. When I try to build I
> >> get this:
> >>
> > As Louis said, GCC 5.1.0 is "-std=c11" by default. Try manually
> > using "-std=gnu89", and see if that helps.
>
> I added this to my CFLAGS like CFLAGS = -std=gnu89 -g -Wall -O2 and it
> still doesn't help. Should I zip up a copy of my DJGGP environment,
No, definitely not. Check your %DJDIR%\manifest\*.mft files, and report
back what you have. Hopefully you aren't trying to mix old and new stuff.
I wouldn't recommend deleting a working setup, but maybe it's too late
for conservatism. (Besides, you can re-download and re-install older
versions from mirrors if needed.)
> maybe I'm missing something here? The error is pointing to time.h in
> djgpp itself and I really doubt that time.h would have an issue since
> it's such a common header to include. It makes me think I added
> something in the wrong order or wrong version or something to that effect.
Are you trying to mix /current/ and /beta/? Don't do that. Stick to one
or the other. Obviously in this case you should maybe just stick to /beta/
since that's where most 2.05-related stuff is (for now).
I vaguely remember some time.h issue with /beta/ 2.04 regarding _rdtsc(),
but I think it was fixed later in CVS (and thus in 2.05). Though I
also kinda doubt that's your problem here. Who knows??
> >> Another reason for
> >> wanting to try out 2.05 is now the project is getting quite large and
> >> I'm getting this warning at link time:
> >>
> >> "warning: .text: line number overflow: 0x10029 > 0xffff". I guess 2.03
> >> has smaller limits for compiling a total project size?
> >
> > Is that (only) with debugging enabled? Yeah, older released (BinUtils
> > before 2.23 ???) didn't have the COFF relocation extension hack.
>
> Upgrading to the latest binutils fixed that issue, thanks for this.
What Binutils were you using before? Obviously Quake 1 used much older
tools than we have nowadays. It didn't surpass any COFF limits at the
time. Well, it was quite small compared to some of the newer .EXEs
(bloat!). :-)
> >> Thanks for everyones help, really looking forward to upgrading Q2DOS and
> >> my Q1/QW ports to 2.05 as well once the issues are ironed out.
> >
> > Honestly, I wouldn't upgrade at all (just yet). If you just want a stable
> > release, don't worry with it. Of course, I'm not saying you can't use 2.05,
> > but at the moment I don't see any huge advantage (outside of just helping
> > further test it for everyone here).
>
> I'm curious about the DX3 and dll capabilities. Will it be able to
> load/unload? Quake 2 used DLLs for the game, so for now it is
> hardlinked, but would like to add the possibility to compile other game
> mods.
I don't know if it unloads. Honestly, I think it's a bit brittle and
not widely used. I wouldn't recommend it, esp. if you already have a
working static library, even if that (in theory) means less flexibility.
I just don't think it's worth the trouble until you've ironed out
literally everything else. But hey, it's your funeral. :-)
- Raw text -