Mail Archives: djgpp-workers/2003/06/10/15:08:21
Hello.
Andrew Cottrell wrote:
>
> > I was thinking we could do DJGPP 2.04 alpha 2 later this month. Reasons:
> >
> > (1) uclock now works on Windows 2000 and later.
> > (2) gcc 3.2.3 has a bugfix for the struct passing issue.
> > (3) A few other minor fixes that I can think of.
> (4) Fix missing files docs from some of the zips.
> (5) Supply LIBC patches in order to support GCC 3.3 for building LIBC
> without any patches.
>
> Added (4) and (5).
>
> > The binary compatibility issue (2) is probably the main reason for
> > releasing alpha 2. If people don't think that's important, then maybe
> > we should wait a while longer.
>
> I still have the following items in my DJGPP mail box waiting for me to
> check on their status to see ig I can delete them or spend time on them:-
> 1 - Richard:- fstat, fd_props and inventing nodes patch - awaiting copyright
> paperwork
Don't wait for the paperwork. I only asked my employer about the paperwork
today. (I was waiting a while, to see how things went with my new job.)
Besides, I still have work to do on the patch. I need to test it with a
network redirector other than the one built into Windows - XFS was the one Eli
suggested.
> 2 - Andrew:- GCC 3.3 patchs - need to be re-worked
> 3 - KB Williams:- cygnus LIBC tests patch
>
> I also have a number of GCC 3.3 specific issues that have been sent over the
> last month that are also waiting for time.
I don't think gcc 3.3 support is a reason to delay the alpha. Getting some
serious testing of nmalloc is more important IMNSHO. Besides, we have several
more releases to get a fix for gcc 3.3 in. ;)
Bye, Rich =]
--
Richard Dawe [ http://www.phekda.freeserve.co.uk/richdawe/ ]
- Raw text -