Sender:	rich AT phekda DOT freeserve DOT co DOT uk
Message-ID:	<3EABBB8A.B824DEF5@phekda.freeserve.co.uk>
Date:	Sun, 27 Apr 2003 12:14:18 +0100
From:	Richard Dawe <rich AT phekda DOT freeserve DOT co DOT uk>
X-Mailer:	Mozilla 4.77 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.2.23 i586)
X-Accept-Language:	de,fr
MIME-Version:	1.0
To:	Andrew Cottrell <acottrel AT ihug DOT com DOT au>
CC:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com, Ben Peddell <killer DOT lightspeed AT bigpond DOT com>
Subject:	Re: Bug 00314 -- div() still broken
References:	<3e9c6920$0$21928$afc38c87@> <fA9pa.20115$1s1 DOT 299825 AT newsfeeds DOT bigpond DOT com> <3EA5477F DOT 2020901 AT cyberoptics DOT com> <SzSpa.21592$1s1 DOT 332473 AT newsfeeds DOT bigpond DOT com> <3ea85d95$0$12489$4c41069e AT reader1 DOT ash DOT ops DOT us DOT uu DOT net> <Ah9qa.22112$1s1 DOT 343387 AT newsfeeds DOT bigpond DOT com> <3ea97d4c$0$19415$4c41069e AT reader1 DOT ash DOT ops DOT us DOT uu DOT net> <lzLqa.23283$1s1 DOT 356122 AT newsfeeds DOT bigpond DOT com> <3EAB995F DOT 273750D6 AT phekda DOT freeserve DOT co DOT uk> <001701c30ca7$6a9c5d50$0100a8c0 AT acp42g>
Reply-To:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com

Hello.

Andrew Cottrell wrote:
> 
> > 2.04 alpha 1 was compiled with gcc 3.2.2, so I'll mention that it probably
> > only works with 3.2.2 in the announcement.
> 
> Sometimes it is better to give dates as people do not know what they have
> installed/downloaded. Here are the relevant dates.
[snip]

True. But I don't want to clutter the announcement up with too much
information. It's enough to know that you have to use gcc 3.2.2 with it.
That's the version we've rebuilt for 2.04, so I don't think it's a problem. ;)

Once we've got to the root of the problem, perhaps someone should post a
warning to djgpp AT delorie DOT com.

[snip]
> One other point to bring up is that with all of the downloads from clio this
> problem has not come up before so it may not be applicable for the majority
> of the end users, but it will affect a number of the djgpp workers who still
> use GCC 2.9.5.3.

Returning a struct value isn't an idiom that's used much in C AFAIK. When I
encountered it for the first time with inet_aton (or whatever it was), I was
surprised. I haven't seen much use of returning a struct between 5 and 8
bytes. What commonly-used functions do that? div, ldiv, ...?

So I wouldn't be surprised if no-one (other than Eric & Ben) has noticed.

Thanks, bye, Rich =]

-- 
Richard Dawe [ http://www.phekda.freeserve.co.uk/richdawe/ ]

- Raw text -