Mail Archives: djgpp-workers/1998/08/03/10:20:21
On Mon, 3 Aug 1998, Michel de Ruiter wrote:
> Why (special reason?) is libc [efg]cvt\(buf\)?-documentation in
> src/libc/compat/stdlib/itoa.txh, instead of their respective *.txhs?
There's no requirement that each module should have its own .txh file.
There are quite a few of other modules that share a single .txh file.
> Where is info/libm.inf? Shouldn't it be in djdev202.zip?
Definitely.
> Why is bin/coff2exe.bat a batch-file, and not a symlink
> bin/coff2exe.exe to stubify?
Why is this important?
> (I noticed that the Emacs building procedure uses `coff2exe' in the
> batch-file,
This is only true when you build Emacs with DJGPP v1.x. Building with v2
doesn't use coff2exe at all, it uses stubify. See msdos/mainmake.v2.
> which should otherwise be `call coff2exe' to be correct and compatible
> with v1.
You don't need (and shouldn't need) to use `call' in a Makefile. A
Makefile, conceptually, is just like a command line: you need to type
commands there exactly as you would from a DOS prompt. So if a Make
program requires you to use `call' with a batch file, it has a bug.
DJGPP's ports of Make don't have this bug, AFAIK.
- Raw text -