X-Authentication-Warning: delorie.com: mailnull set sender to djgpp-workers-bounces using -f From: sandmann AT clio DOT rice DOT edu (Charles Sandmann) Message-Id: <10112161725.AA20038@clio.rice.edu> Subject: Re: GCC build with 2.03 refresh OK (Win2K, WinXP) - Ready for ? To: eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il (Eli Zaretskii) Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2001 11:25:38 -0600 (CST) Cc: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com In-Reply-To: from "Eli Zaretskii" at Dec 16, 2001 10:44:06 AM X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.5 PL2] Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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 Sat, 15 Dec 2001, Charles Sandmann wrote: > > > > There's one report of trouble with WIN95 (Subject: cc1plus.exe: Cannot > > > allocate 65536 bytes after allocating XXXXX bytes in c.o.m.d) which > > > might be a problem with the refresh. > > > > 1) OP says it works under DOS > > 2) Eli says it works under Win98 > > My message wasn't about the patched binaries. I use the original > binaries produced by Andris. I don't know what does this say about > this particular problem. Andris's binaries were built on the 2.03 refresh patches - we're talking about the same binaries. I just ran the sample problem on Win95 using the 3.02 binaries (from Simtel) which are a test for the 2.03 refresh - and I did not have any problem with the compile. I don't believe the problem quoted in the newgroup (which is a week old with no other feedback from the author) is a refresh problem - more likely a Windows 95 memory configuration problem straight out of the FAQ. Now, I can get almost the exact same error in W95 by limiting the amount of DPMI memory to 14336Kb. So it takes 15Mb to compile a null program with GPP 3.02. What does it take to convince you guys this isn't a refresh issue? Give me break.