| www.delorie.com/djgpp/mail-archives/browse.cgi | search |
| X-Authentication-Warning: | delorie.com: mail set sender to djgpp-workers-bounces using -f |
| Date: | Fri, 16 Jun 2006 11:10:43 -0400 |
| Message-Id: | <200606161510.k5GFAhLO022785@envy.delorie.com> |
| From: | DJ Delorie <dj AT delorie DOT com> |
| To: | djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com |
| In-reply-to: | <3629.220.233.177.46.1150432244.squirrel@cafemail.mcadcafe.com> |
| (decker AT dacafe DOT com) | |
| Subject: | Re: djgpp CVS patches |
| References: | <3629 DOT 220 DOT 233 DOT 177 DOT 46 DOT 1150432244 DOT squirrel AT cafemail DOT mcadcafe DOT com> |
| 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 |
> Yes, it was me. Well strange - until now I never felt "stuck" with using > gcc 3.3.2 :) I 'upgraded' to that a couple of years ago and it has worked > just fine. Perhaps something important like libc should be kept at least a > few years backward compatible? The occasional DOS developer might not be > very happy to need to chase every small upgrade as it comes along. We do > want people to do testing, right:)? That being said, I myself was planning > soon to upgrade to 4.1.x sometime toward the end of that minor release. You're confusing *using* libc with *building* libc. Yes, we should keep compatibility with old compilers for *using* libc, but we're allowed to use the latest released compilers for *building* libc. In the past, we've found that enabling as many warnings-as-errors as we can has helped us keep djgpp's runtime very stable, and I plan on continuing that tradition :-)
| webmaster | delorie software privacy |
| Copyright © 2019 by DJ Delorie | Updated Jul 2019 |