From: Charles Sandmann Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.djgpp Subject: Re: Compiling GRX 245 Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2003 13:22:30 CST Organization: Rice University, Houston TX Lines: 34 Message-ID: <3e6ce5f6.sandmann@clio.rice.edu> References: <200303101412 DOT 54939 DOT pavenis AT latnet DOT lv> NNTP-Posting-Host: clio.rice.edu X-Trace: joe.rice.edu 1047325674 12124 128.42.105.3 (10 Mar 2003 19:47:54 GMT) X-Complaints-To: abuse AT rice DOT edu NNTP-Posting-Date: 10 Mar 2003 19:47:54 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 > I'ts said in readme.DJGPP that one needs to have latest update of > djdev203.zip. Perhaps it would be best if this specifically said you need to have updated your djdev203 since August 2002, so that sys/djtypes.h would work properly with va_list. But no one suggested this at the time you wrote it and set it out for review. But I personally don't think this would fix the problem in many cases, since many people don't read documentation. Only including this file in the GCC 3.x distributions and conditionally installing would fix the problem. But we don't have a conditional installer. > As related update were released, I removed a patch at the end > of that file. Patch at end of readme.DJGPP didn't help anyway for many users, > as perhaps not all users found this file and read it. So I think removal of > patch when updated djdev203.zip is available does not cause additional > harm. I agree, we got just as many questions as what to do with the provided patch. I'm just as happy it was removed (or people will be reverse patching out the updated changes). > Also. I completely agree that it would perhaps be better to name updated > version as 2.04 ... I'm not convinced this would fix anything. Today, if you go download all the components it works. It only breaks if you use an old djdev with a new GCC. But anyone who has an old djdev probably has an old GCC, and has decided to move to a newer version. They could just as easily miss upgrading djdev if it were renumbered. So, how are users deciding to upgrade GCC without doing the full upgrade? Should the zip picker, FAQ, readmes warn about GCC 3.x compatibility?