Date:	Sun, 13 Jun 1999 16:51:28 -0600
From:	Daniel Robbins <drobbins AT swcp DOT com>
To:	pgcc AT delorie DOT com
Subject:	Re: PGCC and EGCS question
Message-ID:	<19990613165128.A1003@enoch.weebletron.net>
References:	<Pine DOT LNX DOT 4 DOT 10 DOT 9906011026090 DOT 8220-100000 AT ns DOT nogimmicks DOT com> <Pine DOT LNX DOT 4 DOT 10 DOT 9906030705090 DOT 13696-100000 AT ns DOT nogimmicks DOT com> <19990603213117 DOT D15111 AT cerebro DOT laendle> <19990612103853 DOT A18024 AT enoch DOT weebletron DOT net> <19990613230422 DOT D31417 AT cerebro DOT laendle>
Mime-Version:	1.0
X-Mailer:	Mutt 0.95i
In-Reply-To:	<19990613230422.D31417@cerebro.laendle>; from Marc Lehmann on Sun, Jun 13, 1999 at 11:04:22PM +0200
Reply-To:	pgcc AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List:	pgcc AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To:	listserv AT delorie DOT com

On Sun, Jun 13, 1999 at 11:04:22PM +0200, Marc Lehmann wrote:
> 
> 1.1.1 should, 1.1.3 does not (at least not for all people). The snapshot
> should.
> 
> The egcs version does not have these high optimization levels, so the
> answer is, strictly speaking, no in that case as well ;)
> 
> If you use -O2, however, both egcs and pgcc should be able to recompile
> themselves.


Well, what's the point of -O2?  That's no fun.  Maybe I can get the snapshot
going for the time being.  From a stability point of view, am I losing anything
by going with the current snapshot (compared to 1.1.3)?  Which one would you
choose to base a distribution around -- the current snapshot or 1.1.1?

Thanks for the feedback,

-- 
Daniel Robbins
Chief Architect
Enoch GNU/Linux
drobbins AT swcp DOT com 

- Raw text -