Date:	Sat, 10 May 2003 11:46:00 +0300
From:	"Eli Zaretskii" <eliz AT elta DOT co DOT il>
Sender:	halo1 AT zahav DOT net DOT il
To:	acottrel AT ihug DOT com DOT au
Message-Id:	<3405-Sat10May2003114559+0300-eliz@elta.co.il>
X-Mailer:	emacs 21.3.50 (via feedmail 8 I) and Blat ver 1.8.9
CC:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com, dj AT delorie DOT com, rich AT phekda DOT freeserve DOT co DOT uk
In-reply-to:	<010101c31617$29c4fb60$0100a8c0@acp42g> (acottrel@ihug.com.au)
Subject:	Re: (fwd) Re: SIGILL 386 (illegal opcode)
References:	<200305071759 DOT h47HxQte028947 AT speedy DOT ludd DOT luth DOT se> <200305072355 DOT 16047 DOT pavenis AT latnet DOT lv> <200305072055 DOT h47KtG6q010180 AT envy DOT delorie DOT com> <200305080936 DOT 52719 DOT pavenis AT latnet DOT lv> <010101c31617$29c4fb60$0100a8c0 AT acp42g>
Reply-To:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Errors-To:	nobody AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To:	listserv AT delorie DOT com

> From: "Andrew Cottrell" <acottrel AT ihug DOT com DOT au>
> Date: Fri, 9 May 2003 20:38:42 +1000
> 
> For the next alpha release do you think we should switch to GCC 3.2.3 or
> move to 3.3 snapshots with the assumption that GCC 3.3 is realeased before
> the 2.04 is released?

My $0.02 worth: I'm generally opposed to building production software
with compiler and binutils that were released only recently, to say
nothing of development snapshots.  The risk of being hit by an unknown
bug is too high, and we cannot afford frequent releases to fix such
problems when they are become known.

Does GCC 3.2.3 have some grave bug that we wish to avoid?  If so, why
not use 3.1.x or even 2.95.x?  What do we lose?

- Raw text -