From: Nate Eldredge <neldredge AT hmc DOT edu>
Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Subject: Re: Q: allegro_message
Date: 11 Jun 2000 18:38:23 -0700
Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com
Lines: 48
Sender: nate AT mercury DOT bitbucket
Message-ID: <83snujisq8.fsf@mercury.bitbucket>
References: <39402637 DOT 409213505 AT news DOT globalserve DOT net> <MPG DOT 13aa45e8bde2587d98bbd9 AT news DOT freeserve DOT net> <39405324 DOT 420716556 AT news DOT globalserve DOT net> <a9q0ksorcmfnk96h3du1fotrpc17oa3ou7 AT 4ax DOT com> <394095cc DOT 436991456 AT news DOT globalserve DOT net> <1352ks8jjl1mlooepatkq2pgr0mjibfmbm AT 4ax DOT com> <39412d39 DOT 31864646 AT news DOT globalserve DOT net> <39415245 DOT 99E85010 AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il> <394153c6 DOT 41735427 AT news DOT globalserve DOT net> <200006100600 DOT JAA05708 AT mailgw1 DOT netvision DOT net DOT il> <3942bb21 DOT 133743966 AT news DOT globalserve DOT net>
X-Complaints-To: newsabuse AT supernews DOT com
User-Agent: Gnus/5.0802 (Gnus v5.8.2) Emacs/20.5
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
DJ-Gateway: from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Reply-To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com

zargon AT hotmail DOT vom (Zargon) writes:

> On Sat, 10 Jun 2000 08:58:59 +0200, "Eli Zaretskii"
> <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il> ate too many hallucinogenic mushrooms and wrote:
> 
> >> No, egcs doesn't seem to use the same numbering as gcc.
> >
> >What EGCS?  There is no EGCS anymore, it was renamed back to GCC, when
> >the EGCS team got the responsibility of maintaining the mainstream GCC
> >distribution.
> 
> What? This is news to me...

From egcs.cygnus.com, which is also gcc.gnu.org:

# In April 1999, the egcs steering committee was appointed by the FSF
# as the official GNU maintainer for GCC.

Since about that time, there has been no more egcs.

> 
> >If you mean PGCC, then I suggest to drop it: it's buggy, and is known
> >not to work in some important cases.  AFAIK, it's also not maintained
> >anymore (what is the time stamp on the compiler binaries, btw?).
> 
> PGCC evolved into egcs, which fixed all that, this about a year ago.
> What the devil is going on around here though? It seems like if I turn
> my back for a month or two, everyone changes the landscape and
> rewrites the rules without bothering to notify me...

As I understood it, egcs was a fork of gcc prompted by the perceived
slow speed and poor responsiveness of the gcc maintainters.  pgcc was
a fork of egcs with more agressive pentium optimizations (and more
bugs).  pgcc still exists.

		      /------pgcc--------------->
	       	     / 	       	       	       	    
	  /---egcs--+------(renamed)--gcc------->
       	 / 	     	      	    
gcc-----+-------gcc-----------(dead)

Sorry nobody told you, but most references to egcs now mention that it
has become gcc.

-- 

Nate Eldredge
neldredge AT hmc DOT edu