Date: Mon, 13 Jul 1998 11:10:15 +0300 (IDT)
From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
To: Andris Pavenis <pavenis AT lanet DOT lv>
cc: Alexey Yakovlev <jack AT catalysis DOT nsk DOT su>, Dave Love <d DOT love AT dl DOT ac DOT uk>,
        djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Subject: Re: Inconsistencies between g77 v0.5.23 and v0.5.19
In-Reply-To: <Pine.A32.3.91.980713102004.189076C-100000@ieva05.lanet.lv>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.91.980713110400.323G-100000@is>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Precedence: bulk


On Mon, 13 Jul 1998, Andris Pavenis wrote:

> I also tried to rename some other g77 related stamp files
> to get them unique even with MS-DOS filename length restrictions (8+3).
> However I missed some files (g2c.h.in) but there is not so simple to 
> finish it. So LFN support is perhaps still needed to build g77  

It is generally not nice to request people to have Windows 9X to build 
g77 with DJGPP.

Given enough good will on behalf of g77 maintainers, the offending files
can be renamed to names like g2c.in, and then the output:input feature of
the configure script can be used instead of the default output:output.in. 
I have been successful in convincing several GNU package maintainers to 
do this so that DJGPP could be supported.

> configur.bat in gcc-2.8.1 is some relic from previous versions.
> For DJGPP is simply calls 'sh djconfig.sh'. For other systems it's perhaps
> not working at all with sources from gcc281s.zip.  

If configur.bat is removed, it would probably be nice to add some 
README.dos file that explains how to build and what programs are needed 
to do that.  E.g., many people wouldn't know that "sh djconfig.sh" is 
what's needed.

> I think the best would be to ask user to patch libc.a. I hope djdev202 
> should be out in not too long time and then such change will be no more 
> needed.

You cannot ask the user to patch their libc without telling them where to 
get the patched source.