X-Authentication-Warning:	delorie.com: mail set sender to djgpp-bounces using -f
X-Received:	by 10.129.74.138 with SMTP id x132mr23425935ywa.27.1494106079899;
	Sat, 06 May 2017 14:27:59 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received:	by 10.157.39.138 with SMTP id c10mr986979otb.9.1494106079859; Sat,
	06 May 2017 14:27:59 -0700 (PDT)
Newsgroups:	comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Date:	Sat, 6 May 2017 14:27:58 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To:	<201703111637.v2BGb983025211@delorie.com>
Complaints-To:	groups-abuse AT google DOT com
Injection-Info:	glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com; posting-host=84.82.215.132;
	posting-account=JWQfLgoAAAC8QKtkzNbcIxeduALJ3mlU
NNTP-Posting-Host:	84.82.215.132
References:	<201703111637 DOT v2BGb983025211 AT delorie DOT com>
User-Agent:	G2/1.0
MIME-Version:	1.0
Message-ID:	<70daacd2-b406-4446-8684-ca624011a84f@googlegroups.com>
Subject:	Re: ANNOUNCE: DJGPP port of GNU binutils 2.28 uploaded.
From:	"jwjagersma AT gmail DOT com [via djgpp AT delorie DOT com]" <djgpp AT delorie DOT com>
Injection-Date:	Sat, 06 May 2017 21:27:59 +0000
Bytes:	2095
Lines:	16
To:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com
DJ-Gateway:	from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp
X-MIME-Autoconverted:	from quoted-printable to 8bit by delorie.com id v46Lj1AL014424
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

I built and installed binutils-2.28 (and gcc-7.1.0) from ftp.gnu.org the other day, assuming it would be identical to the djgpp release. Turns out, the linker scripts it installs are somewhat different - they don't define the "_environ" symbol, which caused undefined reference errors when linking with libc.

Anyhow, just curious, why aren't these packages kept in sync with the "official" gnu releases?

Also, 
>The linker script has been adapted to discard LTO sections created by the
>compiler if the -flto flag is passed to the compiler.  This is due to LTO
>specific file names that are not 8.3 clean especially if the -save-temps
>option is used.  This may change in the future when the djgpp port of the
>compiler fully supports LTO.
Does that also apply to cross-compilers (which have no trouble dealing with long file names)? Can I safely remove that line, in that case?

- Raw text -