Date: Thu, 11 Sep 1997 10:37:14 +0300 (IDT) From: Eli Zaretskii To: Nate Eldredge cc: djgpp AT delorie DOT com Subject: Re: Rebuilding gcc -- cc1plus and gxx not made In-Reply-To: <199709110307.UAA07673@adit.ap.net> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Precedence: bulk On Wed, 10 Sep 1997, Nate Eldredge wrote: > Well... without using bash it doesn't work, the makefile bombs out on the > line `genattr config/i386/i386.md > t-attr.h'. Why? This line has nothing special that needs a Unixy shell. The original Makefile created by configur.bat works for me, including that line, without Bash. In fact, the above line (and a few others like it) will NOT work with Bash, because Bash by default doesn't search the current directory for executable programs. Did you change the Bash's PATH to include the current directory? Otherwise, I don't understand how does that Makefile work for you. There are also a few other lines that won't work with Bash: those which use backslashes. For example, this line: bi-arity < $(srcdir)\bytecode.def >t-bc-arity.h (there are quite a few like this one). Maybe you have a modified Makefile? Are we talking about the original one created when you run configur.bat from v2gnu/gcc2721s.zip on SimTel.NET? Or maybe you have some non-DJGPP sh.exe somewhere on your PATH? > Also, I think one of the > makefiles contains a line with backquotes, implying that it needs > bash. Only if you say "make install". The install: target wasn't ported to MS-DOS. Otherwise, there are no backquotes. > At > any rate, having bash seems to greatly simplify things, and it's probably > easier to get it than to research and fix the things that don't work > otherwise. It is actually the other way around: using Bash requires more changes to the Makefile (or to the way you set up Bash). See the comments above. > So I think using only `stock DOS tools' is only important to a > purist. It is also important to people who don't have Bash and the auxiliary utilities installed.