Message-Id: <200006100600.JAA05708@mailgw1.netvision.net.il>
Date: Sat, 10 Jun 2000 08:58:59 +0200
X-Mailer: Emacs 20.6 (via feedmail 8.1.emacs20_6 I) and Blat ver 1.8.5b
From: "Eli Zaretskii" <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
In-reply-to: <394153c6.41735427@news.globalserve.net> (zargon@hotmail.vom)
Subject: Re: Q: allegro_message
References: <39402637 DOT 409213505 AT news DOT globalserve DOT net> <MPG DOT 13aa45e8bde2587d98bbd9 AT news DOT freeserve DOT net> <39405324 DOT 420716556 AT news DOT globalserve DOT net> <a9q0ksorcmfnk96h3du1fotrpc17oa3ou7 AT 4ax DOT com> <394095cc DOT 436991456 AT news DOT globalserve DOT net> <1352ks8jjl1mlooepatkq2pgr0mjibfmbm AT 4ax DOT com> <39412d39 DOT 31864646 AT news DOT globalserve DOT net> <39415245 DOT 99E85010 AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il> <394153c6 DOT 41735427 AT news DOT globalserve DOT net>
Reply-To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
Errors-To: nobody AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To: listserv AT delorie DOT com
Precedence: bulk

> From: zargon AT hotmail DOT vom (Zargon)
> Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.djgpp
> Date: Fri, 09 Jun 2000 20:33:19 GMT
> 
> >> >>egcs-291.60
> >> >
> >> >Try upgrading to GCC 2.95.2 and DJGPP 2.03.
> >> 
> >> That sounds suspiciously like a downgrade to me!
> >
> >Sorry, I fail to see how so: the version you are using sounds like it's
> >version 2.91.60, so 2.95.2 is certainly newer.
> 
> No, egcs doesn't seem to use the same numbering as gcc.

What EGCS?  There is no EGCS anymore, it was renamed back to GCC, when
the EGCS team got the responsibility of maintaining the mainstream GCC
distribution.

If you mean PGCC, then I suggest to drop it: it's buggy, and is known
not to work in some important cases.  AFAIK, it's also not maintained
anymore (what is the time stamp on the compiler binaries, btw?).

> In any case, I'd rather use egcs with its optimizations and more
> advanced and more standard-conforming C++ support than use stock gcc.

There's nothing more advanced about EGCS or PGCC anymore.  There are
more bugs, but you probably don't want them ;-)

> >I don't see anything in this list that doesn't work in GCC 2.95.2.  Did you
> >actually try it and saw some specific problems?
> 
> No, but IIRC stock gcc:
> * Lacks Pentium optimizations, unlike egcs;
> * Has quirks with C++ exceptions, unlike egcs;
> * Has severe linkage problems with C++ templates, which egcs IIRC
>   fixes with a "template repository"; and
> * Does not support namespaces, with some variants *crashing* if they
>   see namespace keywords, while egcs supports namespaces.

You are *way* out of date with these items, they are all fixed in
current versions of GCC, certainly if you actually mean EGCS, and even
if you mean PGCC.

Simply stop using this version of the compiler, it might as well be
*the* reason for your problems with Allegro.  None of the DJGPP
developers uses that compiler version, which alone should be enough
for you to drop it.