X-Authentication-Warning: delorie.com: mail set sender to djgpp-bounces using -f
X-Recipient: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
        d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
        h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to
         :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding;
        bh=+0kiIlW4fXsZTXUwfNbHZAni/C+PgqnUUjvfQiWL5X4=;
        b=OdjOJIu5HeIwG8IYRJobV1o1Oi5if71rGKH+Qz4be6gTQJcoTN+jXo64U5JzXM6kR2
         YqF8PN9cpmzk/g6cvpXec7heR+tGDGXR8Qs5AoN8ThuNqqOcEBzLMRm0Ou9YTFYHJvSf
         I6UfyYYyWkLy6zzoF3LYcmGa75UVWOc7nBy/g=
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAA2C=vAzOz1fSHXHsXpa39WVsctdpGBfMPwM_FwpCmMdrKyw9Q@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAA2C=vAhTVc9f3coSdkT_r_fpXo0miZjCCQ1w+Bo6Gmv+t3Upg AT mail DOT gmail DOT com>
	<4E2E5269 DOT 70402 AT iki DOT fi>
	<CAA2C=vAzOz1fSHXHsXpa39WVsctdpGBfMPwM_FwpCmMdrKyw9Q AT mail DOT gmail DOT com>
Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2011 12:33:07 +0300
Message-ID: <CAA2C=vA+6Td-ZG=-GOaXdwOuXwgS9jCMCa3woMVmVPYh4ogdYw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: DJGPP_MINOR no longer defined?
From: Ozkan Sezer <sezeroz AT gmail DOT com>
To: Andris Pavenis <andris DOT pavenis AT iki DOT fi>
Cc: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by delorie.com id p6Q9e2VX002097
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

On Tue, Jul 26, 2011 at 8:51 AM, Ozkan Sezer <sezeroz AT gmail DOT com> wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 26, 2011 at 8:36 AM, Andris Pavenis <andris DOT pavenis AT iki DOT fi> wrote:
>> On 07/26/2011 01:02 AM, Ozkan Sezer wrote:
>>>
>>> I use __DJGPP_MINOR__ to understand whether I have djgpp>=2.04 or not.
>>> In more recent versions of gcc, specifically starting with gcc>=4.3.0,
>>> DJGPP_MINOR is no longer defined and djgpp.ver is no longer generated.
>>> Is there a specific reason?  (If this is a well known thing, sorry.)
>>
>> You have to include sys/version.h or some other header which includes it
>> to get DJGPP_MINOR
>>
>
>
> I know that.  However, gcc-3.x and gcc <= 4.2.x already did that by
> itself and defined the macro, which is no longer the case with gcc>=
> 4.3.x
>


Specifically, the t-djgpp change, i.e.:

--- t-djgpp~1	2005-05-28 12:36:36.000000000 +0000
+++ t-djgpp	2005-05-28 18:58:38.000000000 +0000
@@ -1,2 +1,10 @@
 # Location of DJGPP's header directory.
 NATIVE_SYSTEM_HEADER_DIR=$(DJDIR)/include
+
+# We should have djgpp.ver before we can compile anything
+EXTRA_PARTS += djgpp.ver
+# djgpp.ver is needed for compilation, so we need it also here
+EXTRA_PASSES += djgpp.ver
+
+djgpp.ver:
+	echo '#include <sys/version.h>' >djgpp.ver

... is no longer being done.  And the old djgpp.h change of:

 #define CPP_SPEC "-remap %{posix:-D_POSIX_SOURCE} \
-  -imacros %s../include/sys/version.h"
+  %{!nostdinc:-imacros %sdjgpp.ver}"

... just turned into this:

-#define CPP_SPEC "-remap %{posix:-D_POSIX_SOURCE} \
-  -imacros %s../include/sys/version.h"
+#define CPP_SPEC "-remap %{posix:-D_POSIX_SOURCE}"

... eliminating the djgpp.ver mechanism.

Any specific reasons?


> Thankfully, stdio.h (as well as go32.h) includes sys/version.h, so I
> pay special attention to include them before doing version checks for
> the moment.
>
>
>>> (As a side note, the *s2.zip patch files are no longer provided either,
>>> which is a big unvenience since we have to download 60+ mb of already
>>> patch gcc sources...)
>>
>> Creating source zip archive using contents of gcc***s2.zip and original FSF
>> source package is not tested for DJGPP already for a long time (also
>> DJGPP ports of Autoconf and Automake are too ancient). Therefore this step
>> is done under Linux:
>> 1) building Linux-to-DJGPP cross-compiler RPM packages (side result
>>   is source archive for DJGPP, eg. gcc461s.zip)
>> 2) using it build native compiler for DJGPP
>>
>> There is an archive which replaces gcc***s2.zip, but it is on
>> ftp.delorie.com
>> inside cross-compiler SRPM file. Maybe it would be nice to put it also
>> separately.
>>
>
>
> Since I build my cross compilers myself and review the applied patches
> before doing anything, having a separate patch package would be really
> appreciated.
>
>
>> Andris
>>
>
> --
> Ozkan
>

--
Ozkan