Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2001 15:04:10 +0300 (IDT) From: Eli Zaretskii X-Sender: eliz AT is To: DJ Delorie cc: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com Subject: Re: Upload of gcc-3.0 archives In-Reply-To: <200107022104.RAA03567@envy.delorie.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Reply-To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com Errors-To: nobody AT delorie DOT com X-Mailing-List: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com X-Unsubscribes-To: listserv AT delorie DOT com Precedence: bulk On Mon, 2 Jul 2001, DJ Delorie wrote: > I would like the > next release of binutils (or perhaps release a patched version of the > current release, as long as CVS has the patch too) to have as much > functionality in the built-in specs files as the ELF ports have. I > would like gcc to no longer ask for a non-built-in specs, nor should > we provide any outside of the builtin ones. Should we upload an updated djdev203.zip with no djgpp.djl? Also, what would happen if djgpp.djl _did_ exist: would GCC or the linker use it? Finally, perhaps we should see how does this internal-script-by-default affect packages that use modified linker scripts, such as dxegen, DLX, etc. > Meanwhile, I would like people to try the gcc zips in v2gnu/alpha. If > I get no complaints about functionality in the next few days, I'll > make that official. Shouldn't you advertise this on c.o.m.d.? Past experience shows that people who read djgpp-workers are a very biased sample of the general user population, so some nasty problems evade us.