Message-ID: <3E529A14.7F493AF5@yahoo.com> From: CBFalconer Organization: Ched Research X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.75 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.djgpp Subject: Re: ANNOUNCE: RHIDE 1.5 References: <3E524A35 DOT 53318A96 AT yahoo DOT com> <3e5257a9 DOT sandmann AT clio DOT rice DOT edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lines: 30 Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2003 22:47:36 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 12.90.169.142 X-Complaints-To: abuse AT worldnet DOT att DOT net X-Trace: bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net 1045608456 12.90.169.142 (Tue, 18 Feb 2003 22:47:36 GMT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2003 22:47:36 GMT To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com DJ-Gateway: from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp Reply-To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com Charles Sandmann wrote: > CBFalconer wrote: > > Robert Hoehne wrote: > > > CBFalconer schrieb: > > > > The main differences are, that I have built it using gcc 2.95.3 > > > and using gdb 5.3. > > > > I used gcc 2.95.3, because the built with gcc 3.2 was very unstable > > > (probably, because the core DJGPP was not bult with gcc 3.2). > > > However my main system, for gpc and gcc, is gcc 3.2.1. and gdb > > 5.3. So I probably should not confuse things by backtracking. > > The GCC version the application was built with should not matter. > V2.03 (and refresh) were built with GCC 2.8.1, many of the Simtel > binaries (like make) were built with GCC 2.7.x, 2.8.x or 2.9.x > > Unless you are using an entire CVS/test system from Andrew's build, > you already have mixed version binaries. No, what I mean is I am using gcc 3.2.1 here, so the new release of rhide would generate different binaries, have less C99 abilities, confuse me even more, etc. -- Chuck F (cbfalconer AT yahoo DOT com) (cbfalconer AT worldnet DOT att DOT net) Available for consulting/temporary embedded and systems. USE worldnet address!