Message-ID:	<3E529A14.7F493AF5@yahoo.com>
From:	CBFalconer <cbfalconer AT yahoo DOT com>
Organization:	Ched Research
X-Mailer:	Mozilla 4.75 [en] (Win98; U)
X-Accept-Language:	en
MIME-Version:	1.0
Newsgroups:	comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Subject:	Re: ANNOUNCE: RHIDE 1.5
References:	<3E524A35 DOT 53318A96 AT yahoo DOT com> <3e5257a9 DOT sandmann AT clio DOT rice DOT edu>
Lines:	30
Date:	Tue, 18 Feb 2003 22:47:36 GMT
NNTP-Posting-Host:	12.90.169.142
X-Complaints-To:	abuse AT worldnet DOT att DOT net
X-Trace:	bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net 1045608456 12.90.169.142 (Tue, 18 Feb 2003 22:47:36 GMT)
NNTP-Posting-Date:	Tue, 18 Feb 2003 22:47:36 GMT
To:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com
DJ-Gateway:	from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Reply-To:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com

Charles Sandmann wrote:
> CBFalconer wrote:
> > Robert Hoehne wrote:
> > > CBFalconer schrieb:
> 
> > > The main differences are, that I have built it using gcc 2.95.3
> > > and using gdb 5.3.
> 
> > > I used gcc 2.95.3, because the built with gcc 3.2 was very unstable
> > > (probably, because the core DJGPP was not bult with gcc 3.2).
> 
> > However my main system, for gpc and gcc, is gcc 3.2.1. and gdb
> > 5.3.  So I probably should not confuse things by backtracking.
> 
> The GCC version the application was built with should not matter.
> V2.03 (and refresh) were built with GCC 2.8.1, many of the Simtel
> binaries (like make) were built with GCC 2.7.x, 2.8.x or 2.9.x
> 
> Unless you are using an entire CVS/test system from Andrew's build,
> you already have mixed version binaries.

No, what I mean is I am using gcc 3.2.1 here, so the new release
of rhide would generate different binaries, have less C99
abilities, confuse me even more, etc.

-- 
Chuck F (cbfalconer AT yahoo DOT com) (cbfalconer AT worldnet DOT att DOT net)
   Available for consulting/temporary embedded and systems.
   <http://cbfalconer.home.att.net>  USE worldnet address!

- Raw text -