From: Andrew Crabtree Message-Id: <199802051757.AA053681426@typhoon.rose.hp.com> Subject: Re: iostream concern To: eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il (Eli Zaretskii) Date: Thu, 05 Feb 1998 9:57:05 PST Cc: robert DOT hoehne AT gmx DOT net, andrewc AT rosemail DOT rose DOT hp DOT com, dj AT delorie DOT com, djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com In-Reply-To: ; from "Eli Zaretskii" at Feb 5, 98 11:54 am Reply-To: andrewc AT rosemail DOT rose DOT hp DOT com Precedence: bulk > corollaries says that a need for a feature which was removed from a > distribution as unneeded will arise within a few hours of the release > that had that feature removed. Let me further remind you that we have > seen this bite us several times in the past. > More seriously, I think we need to wait for some time and gather user > responses before we decide to make g++ supercede DJ's gxx.exe. I don't see it as such. How are we removing a feature? The original gxx.exe is used to compile c or c++ files (by calling gcc), and automatically includes the c++ libs when linking. The new gxx will do the exact same thing - it compiles c and c++ files, and it links in the c++ libs. The new g++ is created by symlinking gcc.c to g++.c and then compiling with a couple of different pre-processor defines. I thought originally about calling it something like new_gxx.exe in the pg++ snapshot, but then just decided to overwrite gxx.exe with it. There have been over 100 downloads and no complaints yet...