Date: Wed, 18 Aug 1999 16:35:29 +0300 (IDT)
From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
X-Sender: eliz AT is
To: pavenis AT lanet DOT lv
cc: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com, Robert Hoehne <robert DOT hoehne AT gmx DOT net>,
        ml1050 AT freemail DOT c3 DOT hu
Subject: Re: gcc-2.95.1
In-Reply-To: <B0000098425@stargate.astr.lu.lv>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.91.990818163411.10490b-100000@is>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Reply-To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To: listserv AT delorie DOT com
Precedence: bulk


On Wed, 18 Aug 1999 pavenis AT lanet DOT lv wrote:

> I also built it using binutils-2.9.1 so the problem reported by Robert 
> with earlier snaphot (19990808, wrong assembler instructions for
> binutils-2.[89].1) is no more there.

Can we be sure that building GCC with Binutils 2.9.1 won't introduce 
similar problems due to features that are supported bu v2.9.1 but not by 
v2.8.1 of Binutils?