delorie.com/archives/browse.cgi   search  
Mail Archives: djgpp-workers/2003/02/07/18:05:57

From: sandmann AT clio DOT rice DOT edu (Charles Sandmann)
Message-Id: <10302072150.AA14657@clio.rice.edu>
Subject: Re: BNU 2.13.2.1 query
To: pavenis AT latnet DOT lv (Andris Pavenis)
Date: Fri, 7 Feb 2003 15:50:33 -0600 (CST)
Cc: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
In-Reply-To: <200302072142.50867.pavenis@latnet.lv> from "Andris Pavenis" at Feb 07, 2003 09:42:50 PM
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.5 PL2]
Mime-Version: 1.0
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

> > Unless it fixes working with UPX, or someone understands why these changes
> > are happening - I think we should just say NO to newer binutils and stick
> > with something older that works.  But that's up to whoever is using it :-)
> 
> Often we find time to look into deeper details only when something stops to 
> work. Unfortunatelly it's so. But we all have also many other things to do.

Sure, but when we find something does break, we should stop using it 
until we understand why.

So I don't believe the newer binutils should be recommended by the 
zip picker (or outside an alpha/beta directory on Simtel) until
we understand it.  If we find a problem after we've moved it to
release - we should roll back to last known good.

I do believe we should continue to build the newer versions and 
use the newer versions (performance and size not an issue) if
something isn't broken.  I do appreciate the effort put into
building the newer versions.

> > Downgrading to something newer, just because it's newer and buggier, isn't
> > always the right thing to do.
> 
> Every is free to choose.

Sure.  But a lot of people don't know better, and don't know the issues
with any release.  They take the recommendation of the ZIP picker or
the most recent version in the releases directory.  I'm just saying we
shouldn't recommend things with known issues.

This is just my opinion - and anyone who knows me for a while knows
I tend to be outspoken with strong opinions.  So feel free to ignore
me ... A note telling me to be quiet is fine, too.

> Of course one can use gcc-2.7.2.1, binutils-2.8.1, etc. It also would work 
> much more faster. Pewhaps for that reason it would be best to have all these 
> old versions in some one place.

Actually in my spare time I am working on some repackaging of gcc 2.7.2.1
and gcc 2.8.1 for easy side-by-side use with the new versions for my 
own use - and I may make these public if it's easy enough to do.
(gcc.exe is always just a stub link to what you've currently picked
as your default compiler).

If I remember they work OK with the new binutils, so I didn't see a reason
to provide old binutils.  This is a byproduct of me trying to consolidate
several development machines and trees...

- Raw text -


  webmaster     delorie software   privacy  
  Copyright 2019   by DJ Delorie     Updated Jul 2019