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: Sun, 19 Mar 2000 15:25:15 -0500
To: cygwin-developers AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com
Subject: Re: Is binutils correct?
Message-ID: <20000319152515.B10069@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
References: <20000318202428 DOT A1511 AT cygnus DOT com> <200003191814 DOT MAA15827 AT hp2 DOT 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
In-Reply-To: <200003191814.MAA15827@hp2.xraylith.wisc.edu>; from khan@NanoTech.Wisc.EDU on Sun, Mar 19, 2000 at 12:14:05PM -0600

On Sun, Mar 19, 2000 at 12:14:05PM -0600, Mumit Khan wrote:
>Chris Faylor <cgf AT cygnus DOT com> writes:
>> 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 be
>> tter.
>
>19990818-1. There is relocation problems with 19990911 (look in cygwin dev
>list about `can't strip cygwin dll' after I released the first snapshot).

I remember the discussion but I thought you'd fixed the problem rather
than dropping back to an earlier version.  I guess I remembered wrong.

cgf