From: Charles Sandmann Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.djgpp Subject: GCC 3.x errors, V2.03 refreshes [was ... Re: Compiling GRX 245] Date: Sat, 08 Mar 2003 16:20:28 CST Organization: Rice University, Houston TX Lines: 53 Message-ID: <3e6a6cac.sandmann@clio.rice.edu> References: <3E6879B8 DOT 92765D5A AT phekda DOT freeserve DOT co DOT uk> <3e68f75a DOT sandmann AT clio DOT rice DOT edu> <3E695102 DOT A3C7FD22 AT yahoo DOT com> NNTP-Posting-Host: clio.rice.edu X-Trace: joe.rice.edu 1047163879 9909 128.42.105.3 (8 Mar 2003 22:51:19 GMT) X-Complaints-To: abuse AT rice DOT edu NNTP-Posting-Date: 8 Mar 2003 22:51:19 GMT X-NewsEditor: ED-1.5.9 To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com DJ-Gateway: from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp Reply-To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com > > > Yes, it was fixed in DJGPP 2.03 refresh 2. > > The differences between refresh 1 and refresh 2 are in: > > http://clio.rice.edu/djgpp/v203u2/djdev203_u2.zip > This is all academic, but the only thing in that that could be > applicable is readme.1st, which is dated 2002-3-5, and has no list > of changes, etc. The only point I am making is that the OP did > not have much of a chance. If the OP had installed the refresh to check the list of changes, he wouldn't have had the problem (even though that change wasn't listed). A quick check on the dates of files makes it obvious what's changed. The OP didn't follow directions and didn't have the most recent release. It would be much more helpful to suggest how this problem could be resolved, instead of sitting back and tossing rocks. The include file changes to fix GCC 3.x were made available right after the refresh 1 was put on Simtel. Other changes were collected and put into a test kit a few months later. I got almost no feedback on the refresh 2 package (including the lack of updating what's changed). I finally requested we put it up on Simtel, just due to the number of questions about the GCC 3.x breakage. So, I messed up and missed putting these into the What's Changed. Yep, my bad. But I at least tried to get the refreshed version out there - or the fix would be hand edit your include files, or stick with GCC 2.x. Should the GCC 3.x releases have a more specific and clear notice about header updates? Maybe. But someone will need to repackage the kits, get them tested, and get them submitted. Looking for volunteers! Just more active review of beta kits and comments back to the kit creators would help. Should the FAQ be updated for this message? Sure. We need someone with the time to make it happen. Volunteers? Should V2.03 refresh include this in the what's changed? Sure. So we need to edit the wc203.txi, regenerate the info file, build a new distribution kit, test it, and get it on Simtel. But while you are doing that, I know of 3 bugs that should be fixed. Volunteers? At the same time, there is an active development trying to get V2.04 finished and released. We don't want to slow that down (or lower it's quality) to chase some of these other items which seem less important, IMHO. Please spend your time updating the kits you feel need better documentation, instead of writing messages about why it's hopeless.