Date:	Sat, 10 May 2003 20:26:20 +0300
From:	"Eli Zaretskii" <eliz AT elta DOT co DOT il>
Sender:	halo1 AT zahav DOT net DOT il
To:	acottrel AT ihug DOT com DOT au
Message-Id:	<6480-Sat10May2003202620+0300-eliz@elta.co.il>
X-Mailer:	emacs 21.3.50 (via feedmail 8 I) and Blat ver 1.8.9
CC:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
In-reply-to:	<005a01c316e7$8d7a6110$0100a8c0@acp42g> (acottrel@ihug.com.au)
Subject:	Re: (fwd) Re: SIGILL 386 (illegal opcode)
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> <010101c31617$29c4fb60$0100a8c0 AT acp42g> <3405-Sat10May2003114559+0300-eliz AT elta DOT co DOT il> <005a01c316e7$8d7a6110$0100a8c0 AT acp42g>
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: "Andrew Cottrell" <acottrel AT ihug DOT com DOT au>
> Date: Sat, 10 May 2003 21:30:24 +1000
> 
> The 3.0 and 3.1 have quite a few nasty bugs that have been fixed in the next
> release(s) so I would avoid them.

Okay, so 3.[01].x are out.

> I have not looked at the GCC 3.3 changes,
> but there are allot and most won't affect us.

But we don't actually know this for sure, do we?

> The 3.x series is allot more compliant than the 2.95.3 with the latest C++

Why should we care about C++?  The only C++ source in djdev is the 387
emulator, and when it is compiled as a library, its only entry point
has C binding, not C++ binding.  Using GCC 2.95.x in the library build
does not mean we recommend DJGPP users not to use anything newer.  Am
I missing something?

Djdev 2.03 was built with GCC 2.8.x.  The refresh was done using
2.95.x, just a couple of months ago.  Why should we leapfrog to 3.3 so
soon?

- Raw text -