Date:	Thu, 27 Jan 2000 10:02:53 +0200 (WET)
From:	Andris Pavenis <pavenis AT lanet DOT lv>
To:	Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
cc:	Laurynas Biveinis <lauras AT softhome DOT net>, djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Subject:	Re: libstdc++ [io]fstream cannot open file in binary mode (g++ and
	egcs) (fwd)
In-Reply-To:	<Pine.SUN.3.91.1000127091231.15566B-100000@is>
Message-ID:	<Pine.A41.4.05.10001270958140.153806-100000@ieva01.lanet.lv>
MIME-Version:	1.0
Reply-To:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Errors-To:	dj-admin AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To:	listserv AT delorie DOT com

On Thu, 27 Jan 2000, Eli Zaretskii wrote:

> 
> On Wed, 26 Jan 2000, Laurynas Biveinis wrote:
> 
> > The GCC team is considering 2.95.3 release, AFAIK. So that patch will (?)
> > be there anyway.
> 
> It remains to be seen.  AFAIK, the release schedules of GCC and
> libstdc++ are not necessarily in sync.
> 
> > BTW, what about making releases based on latest branch CVS version
> > instead of oficial ones?
> 
> I don't think this is a good idea: the main branch is too unstable.  I
> think the most we should do is track the branch of the latest official
> release (i.e. 2.95.x in this case).  Using the development branch is
> not for the faint of heart, and we cannot place the burden of using
> unstable compiler on a typical DJGPP user.
> 

I think Laurynas thought not mainline sources (which really could be
unstable) but gcc-2.95 branch where changes are rather minimal (however
libio changes we are talking about are not yet in). 

> Anyway, given the frequency of the official releases, I think the only
> thing we need to worry about is that Andris will have enough time to
> keep up ;-).

Andris 

- Raw text -