X-Authentication-Warning:	delorie.com: mailnull set sender to djgpp-bounces using -f
Message-ID:	<3C485969.A862A251@netstep.net>
From:	Rodeo Red <rodeored AT netstep DOT net>
X-Mailer:	Mozilla 4.7 [en] (Win98; I)
X-Accept-Language:	en
MIME-Version:	1.0
Newsgroups:	comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Subject:	My program produces nonsense with 3.0.3
References:	<3C483E73 DOT 54F9B484 AT netstep DOT net> <a29gvq$1ta$1 AT nets3 DOT rz DOT RWTH-Aachen DOT DE>
Lines:	43
Date:	Fri, 18 Jan 2002 17:14:59 GMT
NNTP-Posting-Host:	205.232.135.155
X-Complaints-To:	Abuse Role <abuse AT netstep DOT net>, We Care <abuse AT newsread DOT com>
X-Trace:	newshog.newsread.com 1011374099 205.232.135.155 (Fri, 18 Jan 2002 12:14:59 EST)
NNTP-Posting-Date:	Fri, 18 Jan 2002 12:14:59 EST
Organization:	Crossroads Systems (netstep.net)
To:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com
DJ-Gateway:	from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Reply-To:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com

Hans-Bernhard Broeker wrote:
> 
> The name and contents of the djdev*.ver file in the "manifest"
> subdirectory tells you. E.g. you have djdev203.ver, then that's
> version 2.03 of DJGPP you have installed.  The text in that file says
> so, too.
> 
> > red
> --
> Hans-Bernhard Broeker (broeker AT physik DOT rwth-aachen DOT de)
> Even if all the snow were burnt, ashes would remain.

Ok thanks, both my versions of dgjpp have the same number..

I asked you that so I could ask this:

I wrote an html formatter and used this combo to complile:
djdev203 Development Kit and Runtime
gpp2952b.zip : GCC-2.95.2 : GNU C++ compiler (binaries, requires
gcc2952b.zip)

It worked fine. 
Then I updated:
djdev203 Development Kit and Runtime (12/2001 Refresh)
gpp303b.zip : GCC 3.0.3 C++ compiler binaries for DJGPP 

The compiler took twice as long, the the program it produced was twice
as big, and when I ran my program, it took 50% longer and turned the
begining of the web pages into gibberish. (A repeating pattern which,
strangly had the word java in it.)

There were no warnings or errors, and the same code worked fine in
GCC-2.95.2, so can I assume the installation was succussfull but that
the problem is a bug in GCC 3.0.3 ? Did I perhaps download a beta
version ? 

Its no big deal because I kept the old version and switched back by
simply changing directory names, but I thought my versions getting old
so I wanted to upgrade. Is  GCC-2.95.2 considered old ? 

Thanks.

- Raw text -