Message-ID:	<010101c31617$29c4fb60$0100a8c0@acp42g>
From:	"Andrew Cottrell" <acottrel AT ihug DOT com DOT au>
To:	<djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com>, "DJ Delorie" <dj AT delorie DOT com>
Cc:	"Richard Dawe" <rich AT phekda DOT freeserve DOT co DOT uk>
References:	<200305071759 DOT h47HxQte028947 AT speedy DOT ludd DOT luth DOT se> <200305072355 DOT 16047 DOT pavenis AT latnet DOT lv> <200305072055 DOT h47KtG6q010180 AT envy DOT delorie DOT com> <200305080936 DOT 52719 DOT pavenis AT latnet DOT lv>
Subject:	Re: (fwd) Re: SIGILL 386 (illegal opcode)
Date:	Fri, 9 May 2003 20:38:42 +1000
MIME-Version:	1.0
X-Priority:	3
X-MSMail-Priority:	Normal
X-Mailer:	Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1158
X-MimeOLE:	Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165
Reply-To:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com

> On Wednesday 07 May 2003 23:55, DJ Delorie wrote:
> > > Problems with atomicity.h were recently discussed in gcc mailing
> > > lists. Don't expect enything done with gcc-3.2.X. Let's see how it
> > > will be in gcc-3.3 when it will be released (don't ask dates, I
> > > don't know)
> >
> > It pre-released this week.  Too late to fix bugs, but not too soon to
> > start building/testing it.
>
> I built for DJGPP 2003/05/05 5 CVS snapshot from GCC-3.3 branch. No
problems
> bootstrapping it. Hopefully Andrew is going to do more testing as he has
> sources which I used. GCC-3.3 snapshot and also GCC-3.2.3 release.

Now for the $64,000 question:-

For the next alpha release do you think we should switch to GCC 3.2.3 or
move to 3.3 snapshots with the assumption that GCC 3.3 is realeased before
the 2.04 is released?

I don't have the time to build both sets of packages, but I can build the
files with GCC 3.3 and upload them to clio and then when GCC 3.3 is released
then these could become the next alpha after gcc 3.3 is released.

Andrew

- Raw text -