X-Authentication-Warning:	delorie.com: mail set sender to djgpp-workers-bounces using -f
From:	Andris Pavenis <pavenis AT latnet DOT lv>
To:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Subject:	Re: Patches to build GDB 6.3
Date:	Tue, 7 Dec 2004 19:12:29 +0200
User-Agent:	KMail/1.7.1
References:	<01c4c987$Blat.v2.2.2$52b9e920 AT zahav DOT net DOT il> <200412071852 DOT 42299 DOT pavenis AT latnet DOT lv> <200412071654 DOT iB7GsYYg002730 AT envy DOT delorie DOT com>
In-Reply-To:	<200412071654.iB7GsYYg002730@envy.delorie.com>
MIME-Version:	1.0
Message-Id:	<200412071912.29471.pavenis@latnet.lv>
X-Virus-Scanned:	by amavisd-new at fgi.fi
Reply-To:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com

On Tuesday 07 December 2004 18:54, DJ Delorie wrote:
> > If we change things only beginning with GCC-4.0, then new GDB versions
> > will be unusable with for example gcc-3.4.3.
>
> I think we should worry about that, but I'm trying to think of a way
> to make it easy for DJGPP users to know that they have a consistent
> set of stuff.  We have a couple of big new releases coming up, it's an
> opportunity to make it easy to sync up stuff.  Expecting most users to
> keep track of a myriad of versions is a bad idea, although some users
> will prefer that over upgrading lots of packages.

Maybe it's worth to upload for example my latest build of gcc-4.0.0 20041202
and also gdb-6.3 for testing. 

About submitting changes for GCC: I still should myself review accumulated 
changes carefully when I'll have time. Now we see what poked out when I went 
through updates to djgpp.h. Also I recently I sent some small patches to
gcc-patches mailing list, but they seem to be lost in flood of other patches.

Perhaps it should not be too difficult to get in only DJGPP target related 
patches. About part of others we may perhaps need to wait.

Andris

- Raw text -