Mailing-List: contact cygwin-developers-help AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Subscribe: <mailto:cygwin-developers-subscribe AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com>
List-Archive: <http://sourceware.cygnus.com/ml/cygwin-developers/>
List-Post: <mailto:cygwin-developers AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com>
List-Help: <mailto:cygwin-developers-help AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com>, <http://sourceware.cygnus.com/ml/#faqs>
Sender: cygwin-developers-owner AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com
Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin-developers AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com
From: Chris Faylor <cgf AT cygnus DOT com>
Date: Sat, 18 Mar 2000 20:24:28 -0500
To: cygwin-developers AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com
Cc: Mumit Khan <khan AT xraylith DOT wisc DOT EDU>
Subject: Is binutils correct?
Message-ID: <20000318202428.A1511@cygnus.com>
Reply-To: cygwin-developers AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com
Mail-Followup-To: cgf AT cygnus DOT com, cygwin-developers AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com,
	Mumit Khan <khan AT xraylith DOT wisc DOT EDU>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.1.8i

Whild downloading the most recent version of binutils and gcc from
the development snapshot, I noticed that the binutils date available
for download is older than another version that I'd downloaded from
Mumit's site.  The one available is:  binutils-19990818-1.tar.gz.

I had this sitting around in my download directory:
binutils-19990911.tar.gz

Mumit, which one should we be using.  I would think that the newer one was better.

cgf