Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1998 10:16:13 +0200 (IST) From: Eli Zaretskii X-Sender: eliz AT is To: Marco Talamanca cc: djgpp AT delorie DOT com Subject: Re: Which cxxfilt.exe and gxx.exe to use? In-Reply-To: <3645c4a7.993483@enews.newsguy.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Reply-To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com On Sun, 8 Nov 1998, Marco Talamanca wrote: > cxxfilt.exe and gxx.exe. The 'old' cxxfilt is from BNU281, is actually > older by six months and a little smaller: clearly it seems superceeded by > the cxxfilt provided with GPP281. It doesn't matter, they both have the same functionality. (I think the ``older'' one actually is an improved version, but I am not sure.) > I assume similarly that the newer gxx > from DJDEV202 superceeds the one from GPP281, but I'm not completely sure, > since it is almost half the size of the former and GPP281 is fairly > recent, 22/10/98. Am I correct? These two are completely different programs with a different functionality. The new gxx.exe is a complete driver, much like gcc.exe, but with different defaults regarding the libraries it instructs the linker to scan. The older gxx.exe is just a wrapper around gcc.exe which adds several C++ libraries to the link command line. IMHO, it is unfortunate that gpp281b.zip have chosen to call that program by the gxx.exe which was already taken by the version from djdev. I think this adds an unnecessary complication and confusion to DJGPP installation. > Am I also correct in having understood that the outcome of the discussion > about which specs and .djl files to use is of using those wich cames from > DJDEV202 instead of those from GPP281? This issue is not resolved yet (AFAIK). If you use the one from GCC, you will have to edit it, since the __DJGPP_MINOR__ is defined incorrectly. IMHO, you also need to decide whether you want to use djdev202, which is still in early beta. If you do, be prepared for some manual tweaking and extra debugging (and please report any problems you see).