From: lauras AT softhome DOT net
Message-ID: <20010621194145.753.qmail@softhome.net>
References: <Pine DOT A41 DOT 4 DOT 05 DOT 10106211927210 DOT 132868-100000 AT ieva06 DOT lanet DOT lv>
            <2110-Thu21Jun2001213135+0300-eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
In-Reply-To: <2110-Thu21Jun2001213135+0300-eliz@is.elta.co.il>
To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Cc: Andris Pavenis <pavenis AT lanet DOT lv>, dj AT delorie DOT com
Subject: Re: gcc 3.0 released
Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2001 19:41:45 GMT
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Sender: lauras AT softhome DOT net
Reply-To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com



> > djgpp.djl from djdev203.zip doesn't contains all section names which are
> > used. As result linker does bad things when linking. It was taken into
> > account in CVS version some months ago
> 
> Sorry, I'm not sure I understand: are you talking about the DJGPP CVS?

Andris says that djgpp.djl from CVS has been updated to work with GCC 3.0,
but that happened after 2.03 release.

> Assuming that the necessary changes are already in the DJGPP CVS, I'd
> suggest to put that version into the GCC distribution, and let it
> unzip into %DJDIR%/lib and replace whatever version of djgpp.djl is
> there.  This will prevent problems with future upgrading to newer
> versions of Binutils and DJGPP.

This sounds like the best solution for now. 

> I'm assuming that the new djdgpp.djl won't do any harm with older
> versions of GCC (so that people could still use several different
> versions of GCC on the same machine).  Is that assumption true?

Yes, at least it works with GCC 2.95. 

Laurynas