Date: Tue, 14 Sep 1999 13:16:10 +0200 (IST)
From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
X-Sender: eliz AT is
To: pavenis AT lanet DOT lv
cc: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Subject: RE: gcc-2.95
In-Reply-To: <B0000101501@stargate.astr.lu.lv>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.91.990914131203.18753A-100000@is>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Reply-To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To: listserv AT delorie DOT com
Precedence: bulk


On Tue, 14 Sep 1999 pavenis AT lanet DOT lv wrote:

> These things are rather broken. Some days ago related fixes were done
> in gcc source tree (current only, not in gcc-2.95 branch). So perhaps 
> now we have too possibilities:
> 	1) simply build for i386-pc-msdosdjgpp and leave this topic for
>             next version
>        2) backport related changes to gcc-2.95.1 (currently patches fails) 
> 
> In current version options -m386, -m486, ... also are rather broken (try 
> generating assembler source with -m386, -m486, ... and with -
> mcpu=i386, -mcpu=i486, ... and compare results)

Based on your description, it seems that the best practical alternative 
is indeed to build with i386 as the target, and leave the rest for the 
future.  This would at least solve a known problem.  If -mx86 options are 
broken, any other solution risks uncovering additional bugs which might 
break user programs.