X-Authentication-Warning: delorie.com: mail set sender to djgpp-bounces using -f X-Recipient: djgpp AT delorie DOT com X-Original-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; bh=uOhP+C6BVPNloTHWsSiHE2aGklNQqAQhcNHScTqdfS0=; b=ipDRPwoMvgh0A98ZyTx8dSXEV9VXWuMP5nz3rNMIkQVb05slBOdxPN78LfU3aV+T1U S04PwYTj2aCuPG4cYf0a4OVUmPmq6qdto2lb4XZz3dfWsP2mtvVJ3MEsJILdcoGZ58/9 NxhguB/xLUqEYSIeIXAOtwb75UvJOMDF8PnSI8WqcOz62JoYwFJDOI8tPl6rPmSxd15Z qBJ9hYS8gui8z0KCysd25OTSDhwNxczZNWJ8Xd8ioxhrynlGrAk054eU4Pqp5BYwDTGN 77YnHbChlwI8dsqQeqRnuIxEQ3vmxT6faoNlLnuoHS5YQPHeHt3GTjbEwHM2rXyrOUGi gw6A== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.50.43.227 with SMTP id z3mr7977701igl.22.1430916970794; Wed, 06 May 2015 05:56:10 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <201505042003.t44K3odg011007@delorie.com> References: <201505042003 DOT t44K3odg011007 AT delorie DOT com> Date: Wed, 6 May 2015 15:56:10 +0300 Message-ID: Subject: Re: ANNOUNCE: DJGPP 2.05 beta 1 From: "Ozkan Sezer (sezeroz AT gmail DOT com)" To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 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 On 5/4/15, Andris Pavenis (andris DOT pavenis AT iki DOT fi) wrote: > This is announcement of DJGPP 2.05 beta 1 > > It has numerous changes since previous DJGPP 2.04 beta 1 release in 2003. > (http://www.delorie.com/djgpp/mail-archives/browse.cgi?p=djgpp-announce/2003/12/06/22:18:05) > Unfortunately DJGPP v2.04 was never released and old beta version slowly > became almost unusable together with other newer DJGPP packages. > > More information about changes in DJGPP 2.05 beta 1 is available at > > http://www.delorie.com/djgpp/doc/kb/ > > both in sections about changes in 2.04 and 2.05. The same information is > also > available in file info/kb.inf in djdev205.zip > > It needs a lot of testing. Please test it if you have time and/or are > interested in any of the above features. Any level of testing would be > appreciated. include/stdbool.h seems to have some confusion in it, like defining its stuff, (to wrong things), when __cplusplus is defined for one. I suggest that we match it to what gcc itself provides. -- O.S.