From: pavenis AT lanet DOT lv To: JT Williams , djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2001 16:09:47 +0300 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: GCC-3.0 related problem with src/libc/stubs/stubXXXX.S Message-ID: <3B27904B.82.A858F8@localhost> In-reply-to: <20010613080127.C25847@kendall.sfbr.org> References: ; from eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il on Wed, Jun 13, 2001 at 03:43:55PM +0300 X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.12c) Reply-To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com Errors-To: nobody AT delorie DOT com X-Mailing-List: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com X-Unsubscribes-To: listserv AT delorie DOT com Precedence: bulk On 13 Jun 2001, at 8:01, JT Williams wrote: > > -: But that is not a grave problem, IMHO: the library build can require an > -: older compiler if we so decide, because building a library is not > -: something an average user is expected to do. For example, v2.03 could > -: only be built with GCC 2.8.1 or older, even though 2.9x was already > -: available. > > Right, we would build 2.04 with gcc 2.95.3, even if gcc 3.x is out. > There have already been many (user-visible) changes made to stock 2.03, > so a 2.04 release would not be gratuitous (and would allow the major > changes, like symlink support, to be exercised independently of gcc 2.x > -> 3.x changes). Compiling with gcc 3.x is raising issues of its own, > which might be more conveniently addressed (and resolved) independently > of libc feature-related changes. Perhaps it will be reasonable to use gcc-2.95.3 to build official binaries of 2.04 release when such will released. As far as I have tested current CVS version built with gcc-3.0 development version works without serious problems however there are some more (as I have mentioned) problems with building it. I think both things (adding new features and makeing it compatible with gcc-3.0) can be done simultanously. Of course it should be done carefully to avoid breaking things Andris