To: "Andris Pavenis" <pavenis AT lanet DOT lv>
Cc: "Gurunandan R. Bhat" <grbhat AT unigoa DOT ernet DOT in>,
        Alexey Yakovlev <jack AT catalysis DOT nsk DOT su>, djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com,
        fortran AT gnu DOT org
Subject: Re: Inconsistencies between g77 v0.5.23 and v0.5.19
References: <B0000034903 AT stargate DOT astr DOT lu DOT lv>
From: Dave Love <d DOT love AT dl DOT ac DOT uk>
Date: 11 Jul 1998 13:05:59 +0100
In-Reply-To: "Andris Pavenis"'s message of "Fri, 10 Jul 1998 21:28:50 +0300"
Message-ID: <rzqg1g84moo.fsf@djlvig.dl.ac.uk>
Lines: 27
Precedence: bulk

>>>>> "AP" == Andris Pavenis <pavenis AT lanet DOT lv> writes:

 AP> I think it should be treated as bug in f/runtime/configure.in
 AP> as DJGPP defines both unix and __MSDOS__ 

I'm not really sure `bug' is fair :-), but perhaps it needs working
round in the same way as the Windows versions (although cygwin32
doesn't need that for binary mounts AFAIK).

I don't understand why this is only now a problem.  I don't think that
part of the configuration has changed since 0.5.19, but I've not used
g77 seriously on DJGPP and never done a native build.  Can you say
exactly what has changed between the releases to cuase this so that we
can understand it?

Note that there are cpp tests of `GO32' in some places in libf2c too,
but I don't think they've changed recently either and probably aren't
relevant to this problem.

 AP> The following patch for f/runtime/configure.in fixes problem for
 AP> DJGPP port of g77. (and as I hope doesn't break anything).

Does `port' mean that there are other changes to the source necessary
that we (fortran) don't know about, or just mean the build on DJGPP?
If other changes are needed, I expect we'd be happy to have them.  For
instance, does the build now work with the normal configure under
DJGPP bash or are (fixes to) the .bat files still needed?