Message-ID:	<B0000084866@stargate.astr.lu.lv>
From:	"Andris Pavenis" <pavenis AT lanet DOT lv>
To:	Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
Date:	Mon, 26 Apr 1999 14:48:38 +0300
MIME-Version:	1.0
Subject:	Re: v2.03: wrapping up
CC:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
References:	<Pine DOT A41 DOT 4 DOT 05 DOT 9904261012250 DOT 91294-100000 AT ieva01 DOT lanet DOT lv>
In-reply-to:	<Pine.SUN.3.91.990426121708.15084Z-100000@is>
X-mailer:	Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.02b14)
Reply-To:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com

On 26 Apr 99, at 12:25, Eli Zaretskii wrote:

> 
> On Mon, 26 Apr 1999, Andris Pavenis wrote:
> 
> >           Such change will break gcc-2.8.1. Are we really 
> >           going to ask user to mess with specs file?
> 
> Are we going to decide that EGCS is now the main compiler?  

Well I looked FTP sites of some Linux distributions
	Slackware-3.6	- egcs-1.0.3
	Slackware-4.0 beta2 - egcs-1.1.2
	Suse-6.0 - even worse - egcs snapshot from January
	RedHat-5.2 - egcs-1.0.3
	Debian-2.1 - egcs-1.1
They usually have also gcc-2.7.2.3 binary (C only) for Linux kernel, but this
need goes away with 2.2.X kernels.

As we can see different egcs versions is widely used by various Linux 
distributions. Therefore I don't see any serious reason why we should stay with
gcc-2.8.1.  

Andris

- Raw text -