Mail Archives: djgpp/2003/03/10/15:00:09
> I'ts said in readme.DJGPP that one needs to have latest update of
> djdev203.zip.
Perhaps it would be best if this specifically said you need to have
updated your djdev203 since August 2002, so that sys/djtypes.h
would work properly with va_list. But no one suggested this at the
time you wrote it and set it out for review.
But I personally don't think this would fix the problem in many cases,
since many people don't read documentation. Only including this
file in the GCC 3.x distributions and conditionally installing
would fix the problem. But we don't have a conditional installer.
> As related update were released, I removed a patch at the end
> of that file. Patch at end of readme.DJGPP didn't help anyway for many users,
> as perhaps not all users found this file and read it. So I think removal of
> patch when updated djdev203.zip is available does not cause additional
> harm.
I agree, we got just as many questions as what to do with the provided
patch. I'm just as happy it was removed (or people will be reverse patching
out the updated changes).
> Also. I completely agree that it would perhaps be better to name updated
> version as 2.04 ...
I'm not convinced this would fix anything. Today, if you go download
all the components it works. It only breaks if you use an old djdev
with a new GCC. But anyone who has an old djdev probably has an old
GCC, and has decided to move to a newer version. They could just as
easily miss upgrading djdev if it were renumbered. So, how are users
deciding to upgrade GCC without doing the full upgrade? Should the
zip picker, FAQ, readmes warn about GCC 3.x compatibility?
- Raw text -