delorie.com/archives/browse.cgi | search |
X-Authentication-Warning: | delorie.com: mail set sender to djgpp-workers-bounces using -f |
From: | Andris Pavenis <pavenis AT latnet DOT lv> |
To: | djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com |
Subject: | Re: Patches to build GDB 6.3 |
Date: | Tue, 7 Dec 2004 18:52:42 +0200 |
User-Agent: | KMail/1.7.1 |
References: | <01c4c987$Blat.v2.2.2$52b9e920 AT zahav DOT net DOT il> <200412071838 DOT 09466 DOT pavenis AT latnet DOT lv> <200412071638 DOT iB7GcUjp002093 AT envy DOT delorie DOT com> |
In-Reply-To: | <200412071638.iB7GcUjp002093@envy.delorie.com> |
Cc: | dj AT delorie DOT com |
MIME-Version: | 1.0 |
Message-Id: | <200412071852.42299.pavenis@latnet.lv> |
X-Virus-Scanned: | by amavisd-new at fgi.fi |
Reply-To: | djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com |
On Tuesday 07 December 2004 18:38, DJ Delorie wrote: > > > Is there any reason not to just stay with the numbering we had before? > > > > It breaks GDB. It was less noticable in earlier versions, but for example > > GDB-6.3 is unusable with out previous numbering > > So, the new scheme is compatible with the new gdb, yes? As far as I have tested (I need more testing still) > In that case, perhaps we should add gdb to the list of things to > coordinate with 2.04 and 4.0. If we change things only beginning with GCC-4.0, then new GDB versions will be unusable with for example gcc-3.4.3. Andris
webmaster | delorie software privacy |
Copyright © 2019 by DJ Delorie | Updated Jul 2019 |