Message-ID:	<B0000084922@stargate.astr.lu.lv>
From:	"Andris Pavenis" <pavenis AT lanet DOT lv>
To:	Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
Date:	Mon, 26 Apr 1999 20:39:48 +0300
MIME-Version:	1.0
Subject:	Re: v2.03: wrapping up
CC:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
References:	<B0000084866 AT stargate DOT astr DOT lu DOT lv>
In-reply-to:	<Pine.SUN.3.91.990426164338.6979C-100000@is>
X-mailer:	Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.02b14)
Reply-To:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com

On 26 Apr 99, at 16:47, Eli Zaretskii wrote:

> 
> On Mon, 26 Apr 1999, Andris Pavenis wrote:
> 
> > 	Slackware-3.6	- egcs-1.0.3
> > 	Slackware-4.0 beta2 - egcs-1.1.2
> > 	Suse-6.0 - even worse - egcs snapshot from January
> > 	RedHat-5.2 - egcs-1.0.3
> > 	Debian-2.1 - egcs-1.1
> 
> I know; that's why I asked the question.  Cygwin and Mingw32 also use
> EGCS, AFAIK.  It seems that GCC 2.8.1 is all but dead and not actively
> maintained anymore.  I think we need to decide whether we switch to EGCS,
> and if so, begin to use primarily it for everything, including compiling
> the binaries uploaded to SimTel.NET. 
> 
> Does EGCS require to rebuild libc.a with it, or the stock distribution is 
> good enough?

I think it's not required for C sources (such as djdev20X.zip). At least I never
met problems with C code when I mixed object files or libraries compiled by 
different compiler versions. But it's not so with C++.

> > They usually have also gcc-2.7.2.3 binary (C only)

> Which reminds me to ask: how many people here still use GCC 2.7.x for 
> DJGPP-related work?

I don't know. But main reason why Linux distributions had old gcc-2.7.2.3 was 
that it was needed for Linux kernels 2.0.X. 

- Raw text -