Date:	Thu, 08 Feb 2001 20:35:57 +0200
From:	"Eli Zaretskii" <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
Sender:	halo1 AT zahav DOT net DOT il
To:	DJ Delorie <dj AT delorie DOT com>
Message-Id:	<7458-Thu08Feb2001203557+0200-eliz@is.elta.co.il>
X-Mailer:	Emacs 20.6 (via feedmail 8.3.emacs20_6 I) and Blat ver 1.8.6
CC:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
In-reply-to:	<200102081545.KAA10438@envy.delorie.com> (message from DJ Delorie
	on Thu, 8 Feb 2001 10:45:38 -0500)
Subject:	Re: stddef.h - namespace std patch
References:	<Pine DOT SUN DOT 3 DOT 91 DOT 1010208161840 DOT 23371B-100000 AT is> <200102081545 DOT KAA10438 AT envy DOT delorie DOT com>
Reply-To:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Errors-To:	nobody AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To:	listserv AT delorie DOT com

> Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2001 10:45:38 -0500
> From: DJ Delorie <dj AT delorie DOT com>
> 
> > I think we should try to support GCC 2.8.x.  From what I read on 
> > c.o.m.d., there are still people who buy SAMS books which come with 
> > v2.8.1 on the CD (IIRC).
> > 
> > DJ, do you know about older versions that are still being sold?
> 
> I'm sure there are some, but they come with their own binutils.

This is not about Binutils, this is about the changes in the system
headers for djdev204.zip.

> Our concern is with the zips on simtel.  I don't think we need to
> "support" anything else, because anything else should be
> self-consistent.

Right.  So we should only worry about old GCC versions installed on
users' machines, if they upgrade djdev without upgrading GCC.

Is it reasonable to tell that we recommend GCC 2.9x or later for
djdev204?

- Raw text -