Mail Archives: djgpp-workers/2006/06/16/21:01:46
<quote who="DJ Delorie">
> You're confusing *using* libc with *building* libc.
No. Actually... I wasn't.
> Yes, we should
> keep compatibility with old compilers for *using* libc, but we're
> allowed to use the latest released compilers for *building* libc.
IMHO we should be allowed to use the last several recent ones, as well.
Like I said ... within last, say, three years? That being said, I can't
say that I completely understand why the descision was made to embed the
external definition of a string value in the compiler distribution, but
OK... whatever...maybe that's the standard way of doing it?
> 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 :-)
Well, I agree with that. Which makes backward portability a special
challenge :) But I really don't see the sense in getting into a bigger
discussion on these aspects now...
BTW, how does Markus' patch measure up in your opinion, Mr. Delorie? That
is, as I see it, actually the primary topic of this thread :)
regards,
Ben Decker
www.caddit.net
-----------------------------------------
Stay ahead of the information curve.
Receive MCAD news and jobs on your desktop daily.
Subscribe today to the MCAD CafeNews newsletter.
[ http://www10.mcadcafe.com/nl/newsletter_subscribe.php ]
It's informative and essential.
This message was sent to you from a machine at 220.233.177.46
- Raw text -