Path: chuka.playstation.co.uk!scea!peter_alau@playstation.sony.com From: Elliott Lee Newsgroups: scee.yaroze.programming.gnu_compiler Subject: Re: optimization compiler bug ? Date: Mon, 15 Jun 1998 19:42:21 -0700 Organization: Cisco Systems Lines: 45 Message-ID: <3585DB8D.D75822C1@jps.net> References: <35840650.7D29@livemedia.co.uk> <35845685.1169279@news.playstation.co.uk> <3584BE04.35B9AB81@shell.jps.net> Reply-To: tenchi@jps.net NNTP-Posting-Host: dhcp-m-62-246.cisco.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.03 [en] (Win95; U) Yah, I agree on both points. Yes, you can set the extern variable dpmistacksize, but that means that you have to do it in every single program. And, when you're downloading other member's code and then compiling them, having to edit their files to stick in that 1 line gets annoying. I'd rather use stubedit and nip the problem once. :) I'd use a real IDE if it were "standard". I want to be sure that whatever I make can be compiled and run using the Yaroze utils and libraries that we're given. Anything outside of that would be either documented or extra utils/code included in a released version. e.g. if I wrote a game that required PSCommUtil (sp?), I'd have a version of it readily available for downloading right next to the link to download the game. I would love to do Unix, but seeing as there's only 300 MB of free HDD space (and it's reserved for game installations ^_^), I can't install Linux or FreeBSD. Maybe it's time to get a 9 GB HDD... Toby Sargeant wrote: > > On Sun, 14 Jun 1998 23:24:04 -0700, Elliott Lee wrote: > >The fault you're getting is probably due to the fact that the DJGPP > >compiler is running out of stack space. I had this at first and it > >frustrated the hell out of me. So, how do you fix it? Use the > >attached prog called Stub Edit. > > > > > djgpp (or maybe go32) also understands an environment variable called > dpmistack or dpmistacksize (can't remember which it is, or whether there are > hyphens involved) which saves stuffing around with the executable. There's > no reason to still be using a dos based compiler anyway, seeing as you can > compile gcc for win32, and get something that's much better. That way you're > also not locked in to using gcc 2.6.3. > > Of course you could make the real leap, and go to a freeware unix - for > which there will soon be a version of timtool, among other things. > > toby. - e! tenchi@netmagic.net http://www.netmagic.net/~tenchi/yaroze/