From: "Laurynas Biveinis" <lauras AT softhome DOT net>
Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2001 21:12:07 +0200
To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
Cc: jbailey8 AT triad DOT rr DOT com, eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il
Subject: Re: more info
Message-ID: <20010626211207.A1193@lauras.lt>
References: <3 DOT 0 DOT 2 DOT 32 DOT 20010625223038 DOT 007c4480 AT pop-server DOT triad DOT rr DOT com> <3B382573 DOT 4F9FDE25 AT falconsoft DOT be> <7458-Tue26Jun2001173651+0300-eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il> <3B38A4B1 DOT 67C2F96F AT falconsoft DOT be>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <3B38A4B1.67C2F96F@falconsoft.be>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.18i
Reply-To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
Errors-To: nobody AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To: listserv AT delorie DOT com
Precedence: bulk

> If xgcc is trying to create ./specs through renaming and it's on WinME,
> it might
> be a rename() issue; other than that, I'd consider the possibility of
> xgcc trying
> to run ./specs most likely.

Yes. It is created like 
./xgcc -blah -blah -dumpspecs > tmp-specs
mv tmp-specs specs

That's why I've asked for output of these commands in my other mail.

Laurynas