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
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

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?

- Raw text -