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=20161025;
	h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to;
	bh=GqusahHReX1cxk/4YWBtRW8vnWfNpOW+FGBHR8mI/VE=;
	b=RY47/aKCFRvvEqgizd+FVoJDvXtCCwEeGWdmfK+I1BMgBSvwGq5v0YHrcMZWP2ZoH4
	Ge08NYMBvdcwHeBAiJ/DInYpPF+ofRbcZMMPAg/7WyKDLfM23pwevBPSIaLca6Q+nBIU
	UcdqAQGprW7dgpI4RUVBv6rahWthzYNPFGagBT0jD17EbyBDIS9xuyoXcXSkXpRfSOjd
	hbR4KPfYGJsl5v3ROu/oX+xBQvZu0YaW2DUuWo8+aRBnEt+sXqZixKGDAHKhJsaXXTHR
	oTiabguxmhnkmfTPcT3duPeN/+SH5NCkfp9bZfqwTwuyQ0lR86cBPdu2r2uHdOUzb1FK
	yULg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature:	v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
	d=1e100.net; s=20161025;
	h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date
	:message-id:subject:to;
	bh=GqusahHReX1cxk/4YWBtRW8vnWfNpOW+FGBHR8mI/VE=;
	b=t2YfngHTupclKgVvPT3sOYhAReVfIREPXOVAt1fDXUIuWBtJ42rSEln1cTOessvWcw
	uoxZG7w7YN4nB/M3qCi0luQPO5LV7GH2ZkqAFH+8n9puGIg2r7n1d2Mvp+PqDQ2m5hgs
	LWj9WwM5EMk7dB5EvY7BZbvkgy3V9ABWvvH/Tc0xNrpePF9M/rfuprI4lsgxxuGRjhRv
	0MoSGqcEOGc0RSBIWoFhcpxstbtsxJGOtt1T+GYfBIQL2hz0Wq10cklSHL/zSLJY4Z6u
	JnElvR+3uOkFI2jQCL2WewVolo7UltZd/fSiVaxEayi3F0QwaNzc+6Zgb4F1PXuOFn/Z
	ACBg==
X-Gm-Message-State:	AKGB3mJo1L5jQy0PkreiqylcZHGkrVC/SFR1B3szfo4i3iWKhCVnbNWr
	1V/klPt9cHMcY3ohINxTSVnUgLLVRvjU/XzjpAo=
X-Google-Smtp-Source:	ACJfBovOyE6n7UkgIMSNofLaT2EE7wjotfe6cPdu8uoOWaCqR5aZeXdTrtnHR3uiWl1DOsQ8r8GEzA52SCyYSpBpx0s=
X-Received:	by 10.55.127.68 with SMTP id a65mr361443qkd.77.1515175392371; Fri,
	05 Jan 2018 10:03:12 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version:	1.0
In-Reply-To:	<5A4FB869.7070504@gmx.de>
References:	<201707301540 DOT v6UFecLb017840 AT delorie DOT com> <CAA2C=vBWY7HYeu+tdO=WYN=wEmWfhLXWgH-9PtSvZkMs54rs1Q AT mail DOT gmail DOT com>
	<5980C3AA DOT 2080305 AT gmx DOT de> <euccrcFp8kqU1 AT mid DOT dfncis DOT de> <598108FD DOT 5060908 AT gmx DOT de>
	<83ini6zmsv DOT fsf AT gnu DOT org> <5984FE96 DOT 9040905 AT gmx DOT de> <59D94AEB DOT 8050700 AT gmx DOT de> <5A4FB869 DOT 7070504 AT gmx DOT de>
From:	"Ozkan Sezer (sezeroz AT gmail DOT com) [via djgpp AT delorie DOT com]" <djgpp AT delorie DOT com>
Date:	Fri, 5 Jan 2018 21:03:11 +0300
Message-ID:	<CAA2C=vDU1F8im5ZnYgj_T+v1QPXwD3y_3FiaPirkK-63bYYM5A@mail.gmail.com>
Subject:	Re: ANNOUNCE: DJGPP port of GNU binutils 2.29 uploaded.
To:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com
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

On 1/5/18, Juan Manuel Guerrero (juan DOT guerrero AT gmx DOT de) [via
djgpp AT delorie DOT com] <djgpp AT delorie DOT com> wrote:
> Am 07.10.2017 23:45, schrieb Juan Manuel Guerrero (juan DOT guerrero AT gmx DOT de)
> [via djgpp AT delorie DOT com]:
>> Am 05.08.2017 01:09, schrieb Juan Manuel Guerrero (juan DOT guerrero AT gmx DOT de)
>> [via djgpp AT delorie DOT com]:
>>> Am 02.08.2017 05:11, schrieb Eli Zaretskii (eliz AT gnu DOT org) [via
>>> djgpp AT delorie DOT com]:
>>>>> Date: Wed, 02 Aug 2017 01:04:29 +0200
>>>>> From: "Juan Manuel Guerrero (juan DOT guerrero AT gmx DOT de) [via
>>>>> djgpp AT delorie DOT com]"<djgpp AT delorie DOT com>
>>>>>
>>>>> IMHO it is easier to fix stdio.h than start endless discussion with the
>>>>> binutils
>>>>> maintainers. I do not think that the DJGPP user group is still so large
>>>>> that
>>>>> some one will be hurd if we change _doprnt by __doprnt or something
>>>>> similar.
>>>>
>>>> Renaming our _doprnt is certainly doable, but it means some
>>>> application that really needs our _doprnt will now become broken.
>>>>
>>>> An alternative would be to move _doprint to some other header, like
>>>> libc/doprnt.h.
>>>
>>>
>>> I have moved the _doprnt, _doscan and _doscan_low declarations to
>>> libc/doprnt.
>>> The file name is arbitrary. If some one has a more appropriate one,
>>> please
>>> let me know. I have intentionaly moved also _doscan and _doscan_low
>>> together
>>> with _doprnt. I have seen no reasons to move one of them and let the
>>> other
>>> ones. This shall avoid possible future issues.
>>> It is ok with me if someone likes to send a DJGPP specific fix to the
>>> binutils
>>> maintainers. I have checked that binutils can be compiled without
>>> changes
>>> with a libc modified by this patch.
>>> If no one complains about these changes in a period of 3 or 4 weeks I
>>> will
>>> assume that the changes have been accepted and will commit them.
>>
>>
>> I had encouraged every DJGPP user to send a patch to fix the _doprnt
>> conflict in bfd.c. An inspection of binutils-2.29.1 shows that the
>> issue has not been fixed and thus I have to assume that either no one
>> has send a fix to the binutils maintainers or they have refused to fix
>> this DJGPP specific issue. Thus I will commit the patch below today
>> to fix this issue at libc level. As discussed before, the problematic
>> declarations will be moved into a new header.
>
> OFYI, I have commited the proposed changes.
>
> Regards,
> Juan M. Guerrero
>

Binutils already fixed that _doprnt issue mainstream:
http://sourceware.org/git/gitweb.cgi?p=binutils-gdb.git;a=commitdiff;h=8f314ad58ec824ce6c8467af29f11583f79a80ea

I don't see why we would still need those changes in djgpp:
I suggest reverting them.

- Raw text -