Mail Archives: djgpp-workers/2001/06/13/09:10:00
On 13 Jun 2001, at 8:01, JT Williams wrote:
>
> -: But that is not a grave problem, IMHO: the library build can require an
> -: older compiler if we so decide, because building a library is not
> -: something an average user is expected to do. For example, v2.03 could
> -: only be built with GCC 2.8.1 or older, even though 2.9x was already
> -: available.
>
> Right, we would build 2.04 with gcc 2.95.3, even if gcc 3.x is out.
> There have already been many (user-visible) changes made to stock 2.03,
> so a 2.04 release would not be gratuitous (and would allow the major
> changes, like symlink support, to be exercised independently of gcc 2.x
> -> 3.x changes). Compiling with gcc 3.x is raising issues of its own,
> which might be more conveniently addressed (and resolved) independently
> of libc feature-related changes.
Perhaps it will be reasonable to use gcc-2.95.3 to build official binaries
of 2.04 release when such will released.
As far as I have tested current CVS version built with gcc-3.0
development version works without serious problems however there
are some more (as I have mentioned) problems with building it.
I think both things (adding new features and makeing it compatible
with gcc-3.0) can be done simultanously. Of course it should be done
carefully to avoid breaking things
Andris
- Raw text -