X-Authentication-Warning: delorie.com: mail set sender to djgpp-bounces using -f X-Received: by 10.50.142.8 with SMTP id rs8mr5363525igb.13.1434121379207; Fri, 12 Jun 2015 08:02:59 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.140.23.50 with SMTP id 47mr232958qgo.24.1434121379063; Fri, 12 Jun 2015 08:02:59 -0700 (PDT) Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.djgpp Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2015 08:02:58 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <557AE57B.4090204@gmail.com> Complaints-To: groups-abuse AT google DOT com Injection-Info: glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com; posting-host=65.13.115.246; posting-account=p5rsXQoAAAB8KPnVlgg9E_vlm2dvVhfO NNTP-Posting-Host: 65.13.115.246 References: <201506091712 DOT t59HCPci004068 AT delorie DOT com> <557739E0 DOT 6070608 AT gmail DOT com> <55775E64 DOT 2090901 AT gmail DOT com> <5579ED42 DOT 6070309 AT gmail DOT com> <83616ts7gt DOT fsf AT gnu DOT org> <510f0bc7-7911-4d22-bfca-48716371ecb5 AT googlegroups DOT com> <83r3phqbhd DOT fsf AT gnu DOT org> <557AE57B DOT 4090204 AT gmail DOT com> User-Agent: G2/1.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-ID: <9895c09c-0d26-4c3d-85fc-7157c27deae3@googlegroups.com> Subject: Re: DJGGP 2.05 upgrade problems. From: "rugxulo AT gmail DOT com" Injection-Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2015 15:02:59 +0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Bytes: 2267 Lines: 14 To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com DJ-Gateway: from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp 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 Hi, On Friday, June 12, 2015 at 8:58:31 AM UTC-5, Frank Sapone (emoaddict15 AT hates DOT spam) wrote: > >> Anyways, at the very least, such things (Find or File+Txt+Shl) > >> should probably be recompiled with 2.05 *before* trying to debug > >> anything. > > I thought he already did. Apologies if I misunderstood. > > I only grabbed the latest binutils and various friends from the > /beta/v2gnu section assuming these binaries were already made with 2.05 No, in fact, I don't think most things were recompiled (from old 2.04) for 2.05 (yet??). I was surprised to see one or two things (allegedly) using it. I didn't expect barely any of it to be rebuilt at all. But now that somebody mentioned that, it might not be a bad idea.