Re: 000217: status of DJGPP support

[Andrew Cagney <ac131313 at cygnus dot com>]

Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> 
> I fetched the 000217 snapshot yesterday and tried to build it with
> DJGPP.  I had only limited success: after some tweaking, everything
> compiled, but linker complains about undefined references to several
> functions.  In general, the DJGPP native support should be currently
> considered broken in several ways; I'm working on repairing it.
> 
> Here are some specific comments/questions:
> 
>   - There are lots of warnings about comparison of signed with
>     unsigned and unused arguments.  I find it hard to believe that
>     this is specific to DJGPP: doesn't anyone else see these warnings?
>     No doubt they are due to -Wall, but I understand we want to go
>     into production with these switches, right?

Not for 5.0.  The only warnings I consider significant for 5.0 are those
from:

,-Wimplicit\
,-Wreturn-type\
,-Wcomment\
,-Wtrigraphs\
,-Wformat\
,-Wparentheses\
,-Wpointer-arith\
,-Woverloaded-virtual\

even then, there are going to be platforms that can't be compiled if
these flags are specified.  Sorry.

>   - The configure scripts cannot be run without some tricks, like
>     setting a few variables in the environment.  So I'm thinking about
>     adding a gdb/djgpp subdirectory with a special script that DJGPP
>     users will need to run (and which in turn will run the top-level
>     configure), and maybe a few small Sed scripts to fix file-name
>     related problems on 8+3 filesystems.  Is this acceptable?

Well, there is currently:

	gdb/mpw-make.sed
and	gdb/config/mpw/*

I'd suggest:

	gdb/config/djgpp/*

Comments? Stan?

>   - What is the policy for fixing problems in the directories taken
>     from Binutils?  I'd imagine you want me to send patches to
>     Binutils maintainers, but with the next Binutils release nowhere
>     in sight, and some of my patches to Binutils in the queue since
>     August, is this really practical?  How can I make sure these
>     problems are fixed in GDB before GDB 5.0 is released?

GDB 5.0 shares the bfd, include, and a few other directories with
BINUTILS.  This means that once a patch is approved for BINUTILS, GDB
gets it immediatly - the problem of new release has been eliminated. 
Unfortunatly, this also means that if BINUTILS pushes back on a patch,
GDB can't accept it :-(

How to solve the situtation you're in? Off hand, I don't know - what
exactly is the status of those patches?

	Andrew