Mailing-List:	contact cygwin-developers-help AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Subscribe:	<mailto:cygwin-developers-subscribe AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com>
List-Archive:	<http://sourceware.cygnus.com/ml/cygwin-developers/>
List-Post:	<mailto:cygwin-developers AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com>
List-Help:	<mailto:cygwin-developers-help AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com>, <http://sourceware.cygnus.com/ml/#faqs>
Sender:	cygwin-developers-owner AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com
Delivered-To:	mailing list cygwin-developers AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com
Message-Id:	<200003191814.MAA15827@hp2.xraylith.wisc.edu>
To:	cygwin-developers AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com
cc:	khan AT hp2 DOT xraylith DOT wisc DOT edu
Subject:	Re: Is binutils correct?
In-reply-to:	Your message of "Sat, 18 Mar 2000 20:24:28 EST."
	<20000318202428 DOT A1511 AT cygnus DOT com>
Date:	Sun, 19 Mar 2000 12:14:05 -0600
From:	Mumit Khan <khan AT NanoTech DOT Wisc DOT EDU>

Chris Faylor <cgf AT cygnus DOT com> writes:
> Whild downloading the most recent version of binutils and gcc from
> the development snapshot, I noticed that the binutils date available
> for download is older than another version that I'd downloaded from
> Mumit's site.  The one available is:  binutils-19990818-1.tar.gz.
> 
> I had this sitting around in my download directory:
> binutils-19990911.tar.gz
> 
> Mumit, which one should we be using.  I would think that the newer one was be
> tter.

19990818-1. There is relocation problems with 19990911 (look in cygwin dev
list about `can't strip cygwin dll' after I released the first snapshot).

Regards,
Mumit

- Raw text -