X-Authentication-Warning: kendall.sfbr.org: jeffw set sender to jeffw AT darwin DOT sfbr DOT org using -f
Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2001 08:01:27 -0500
From: JT Williams <jeffw AT darwin DOT sfbr DOT org>
To: Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
Cc: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Subject: Re: GCC-3.0 related problem with src/libc/stubs/stubXXXX.S
Message-ID: <20010613080127.C25847@kendall.sfbr.org>
Mail-Followup-To: Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>,
	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
References: <20010613073937 DOT B25847 AT kendall DOT sfbr DOT org> <Pine DOT SUN DOT 3 DOT 91 DOT 1010613153949 DOT 17867F-100000 AT is>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i
In-Reply-To: <Pine.SUN.3.91.1010613153949.17867F-100000@is>; from eliz@is.elta.co.il on Wed, Jun 13, 2001 at 03:43:55PM +0300
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
Precedence: bulk

-: > This thread (and others posted by Andris) lead me to wonder if
-: > djdev 2.04 should be built using gcc 2.95.3 and released ASAP,
-: > and djdev built with gcc 3.x be postponed for 2.05?
-: 
-: AFAIK, GCC 3.0 is slated to be released in a matter of days (I think I 
-: heard June 14 or something).  We have no practical way to release DJGPP 
-: v2.04 in one day, no matter how hard did we try ;-)

No, that's not what I meant ;-)

-: But that is not a grave problem, IMHO: the library build can require an 
-: older compiler if we so decide, because building a library is not 
-: something an average user is expected to do.  For example, v2.03 could 
-: only be built with GCC 2.8.1 or older, even though 2.9x was already 
-: available.

Right, we would build 2.04 with gcc 2.95.3, even if gcc 3.x is out.
There have already been many (user-visible) changes made to stock 2.03,
so a 2.04 release would not be gratuitous (and would allow the major
changes, like symlink support, to be exercised independently of gcc 2.x
-> 3.x changes).  Compiling with gcc 3.x is raising issues of its own,
which might be more conveniently addressed (and resolved) independently
of libc feature-related changes.

Again, it's just a question I thought should be raised.