From: Andrew Crabtree <andrewc AT typhoon DOT rose DOT hp DOT com>
Message-Id: <199802051757.AA053681426@typhoon.rose.hp.com>
Subject: Re: iostream concern
To: eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il (Eli Zaretskii)
Date: Thu, 05 Feb 1998 9:57:05 PST
Cc: robert DOT hoehne AT gmx DOT net, andrewc AT rosemail DOT rose DOT hp DOT com, dj AT delorie DOT com,
        djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
In-Reply-To: <Pine.SUN.3.91.980205115407.28596G-100000@is>; from "Eli Zaretskii" at Feb 5, 98 11:54 am
Reply-To: andrewc AT rosemail DOT rose DOT hp DOT com
Precedence: bulk

> corollaries says that a need for a feature which was removed from a
> distribution as unneeded will arise within a few hours of the release
> that had that feature removed.  Let me further remind you that we have
> seen this bite us several times in the past.
> More seriously, I think we need to wait for some time and gather user
> responses before we decide to make g++ supercede DJ's gxx.exe.

I don't see it as such.  How are we removing a feature?  The original
gxx.exe is used to compile c or c++ files (by calling gcc), and automatically
includes the c++ libs when linking.  The new gxx will do the 
exact same thing - it compiles c and c++ files, and it links in the 
c++ libs.  The new g++ is created by symlinking gcc.c to g++.c and then
compiling with a couple of different pre-processor defines.  

I thought originally about calling it something like new_gxx.exe
in the pg++ snapshot, but then just decided to overwrite gxx.exe with
it.  There have been over 100 downloads and no complaints yet...