Date:	Thu, 08 Feb 2001 20:39:28 +0200
From:	"Eli Zaretskii" <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
Sender:	halo1 AT zahav DOT net DOT il
To:	"Mark E." <snowball3 AT bigfoot DOT com>
Message-Id:	<9003-Thu08Feb2001203927+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:	<3A8276B4.22740.2F391B@localhost> (snowball3@bigfoot.com)
Subject:	Re: GCC: DJGPP bootstrap fix + define MSDOS
References:	<Pine DOT SUN DOT 3 DOT 91 DOT 1010208102233 DOT 20284R-100000 AT is> <3A8276B4 DOT 22740 DOT 2F391B AT localhost>
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

> From: "Mark E." <snowball3 AT bigfoot DOT com>
> Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2001 10:36:36 -0500
> 
> > It means that DJGPP port of gcc-3.0 will be no more usable with 
> > binutils 2.8.* and 2.9.*. One will need to use 2.10 or above (really
> > bnu2951b.zip will also work)
> 
> I agree with Andris that -mbnu210 can probably be removed even without the 
> bootstrap failure forcing the issue.
> 
> A gcc 3.0 binary built using binutils 2.10 won't work if you install it on a 
> machine with binutils < 2.10.

If people don't mind requiring Binutils 2.10 for GCC 3.0, I guess it's
okay to remove -mbnu210.

Are we sure that this is the only implication of this removal?

> Two binaries could be distributed. One built using bnu 2.10 or later, and the 
> other built using bnu 2.91, but that would probably confuse rather than help. 
Yes, it will be confusing.  I don't think we should do that.

- Raw text -