Date:	Mon, 3 Apr 2000 10:20:09 +0200 (WET)
From:	Andris Pavenis <pavenis AT lanet DOT lv>
To:	Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
cc:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com
Subject:	Re: Gdb and floating point
In-Reply-To:	<Pine.SUN.3.91.1000402091127.9367A-100000@is>
Message-ID:	<Pine.A41.4.05.10004031011540.47140-100000@ieva05.lanet.lv>
MIME-Version:	1.0
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

On Sun, 2 Apr 2000, Eli Zaretskii wrote:

> 
> On Tue, 28 Mar 2000 pavenis AT lanet DOT lv wrote:
> 
> > At least I built gdb-20000327 for DJGPP without problems (thanks Eli 
> > for that)
> 
> Thanks for testing it.

Earlier I also tested cross-building GDB snapshot for DJGPP under Linux.
All also worked except I had to patch one source that went into CVS
later. So I think we should not have problems both with building current
GDB snapshots for DJGPP both with DJGPP and also under Linux

> 
> > Also. Had to hack RHIDE rather much to be able to build it using this
> > snapshot.
> 
> Could you summarize the problems you had with building RHIDE?  Is
> there something in GDB 5.0 that should be changed to make it easier?
> 

I don't think so. RHIDE should be modified in this case. Even if I
suceeded to get working binary of RHIDE with recent snapshot additional
changes in RHIDE are still needed. I think that changes in GDB is a steps
in right direction.

Andris

- Raw text -