Peter Gerwinski a écrit :
Hello, everybody!
Frank Heckenbach wrote:
The gcc patch is Peter's area. [...]
Well, it is not a patch to the normal GCC source but to the "special edition" that comes with DJGPP.
We can include this patch into the GPC source in order to make it easier to compile GPC natively under DJGPP (and document all this in doc/install.texi). However the correct place for this is between the other scripts that come with DJGPP.
Maurice, would you mind to ask at the DJGPP list (where you are already writing:-) for inclusion of your patches into the regular distribution? As far as I see, they are already providing support for multiple languages ...
I have updated the patches, both in attachment and in
ftp://agnes.dida.physik.uni-essen.de/maurice/build_gpc_djgpp.diff
Instruction for use are at the beginning of this file.
besides a correction to a bug in mkdist.sh which eliminated *.inc files, changes are made for easier use:
- update automatically the manifest file with the actual contents of the demos docdemos and units directories
- modify the build.bat (and djbuild1.sh) in order to have a simple way to build only part of the compilers (typing e.g. build pascal c++), whereas the original built the whole bunch. This was mandatory because djgpp cannot execute in one step too long makefiles due to loss of DPMI handles by Windows. They had already split the process in several steps to overcome this problem. Adding one more compiler brings the problem back.
This produces a full three step bootstrap build. There is however a bug in the last version of binutils (2.10), which makes the comparison of stages 2 and 3 to fail. Downgrading to binutils 2.9.5.1 solves the problem. I have checked that the bug to internal files still remains however.
For use by unexperienced users, the blink asking for the gpc patch (blind because all output is redirected to files, making easier afterwards to examine the results) becomes annoying: there seems to be no more any utility to ask to the user if he wants to apply the gpc patch, since the previous application of the patch is detected automatically. Why not skip this question ?
Hope this helps
Maurice