Mail Archives: djgpp-workers/2006/06/16/11:11:33
> Yes, it was me. Well strange - until now I never felt "stuck" with using
> gcc 3.3.2 :) I 'upgraded' to that a couple of years ago and it has worked
> just fine. Perhaps something important like libc should be kept at least a
> few years backward compatible? The occasional DOS developer might not be
> very happy to need to chase every small upgrade as it comes along. We do
> want people to do testing, right:)? That being said, I myself was planning
> soon to upgrade to 4.1.x sometime toward the end of that minor release.
You're confusing *using* libc with *building* libc. Yes, we should
keep compatibility with old compilers for *using* libc, but we're
allowed to use the latest released compilers for *building* libc.
In the past, we've found that enabling as many warnings-as-errors as
we can has helped us keep djgpp's runtime very stable, and I plan on
continuing that tradition :-)
- Raw text -