Re: Re: New maintainer for EMX?

On Thu, Jun 19, 2003 at 11:25:51AM +0200, Eberhard Mattes wrote:
> > My conjecture is that his work was funded up to some moment, then
> > the funds went away.
> 
> My work on emx was never funded.

OK, then I need another conjecture for why EMX development slowed down
so much.  ;-)  And MANY THANKS for what you did already!

> > > Was it a change in object file format that would generate a lot of
> > > work?
> > 
> > I do not see any need for such change.
> 
> For C++, support of section .gnu.linkonce is very important.

What I wrote was about compiling EMX dlls.  Having no C++ parts, why
would they need .gnu.linkonce?

> > What one needs is working DLLs.  Nobody cares which compiler created
> > them, and in what format.  Using gcc 2.8.1 (for build of these DLLs)
> > is a reasonable decision.
> 
> Code generated by GCC 2.8 (for C++ source) is not binary compatible
> with code generated by later versions.

Likewise.

Hope this helps,
Ilya