From: pavenis AT lanet DOT lv
To: "Eli Zaretskii" <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>, djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2001 19:30:01 +0300
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Subject: Re: gcc 3.0 released
Message-ID: <3B339CB9.13700.D9FD74@localhost>
In-reply-to: <9003-Fri22Jun2001190230+0300-eliz@is.elta.co.il>
References: <993214856 DOT 8796 DOT 0 DOT camel AT bender DOT falconsoft DOT be> (message from Tim	Van Holder on 22 Jun 2001 15:00:55 +0200)
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 22 Jun 2001, at 19:02, Eli Zaretskii wrote:

> > From: Tim Van Holder <tim DOT van DOT holder AT pandora DOT be>
> > Date: 22 Jun 2001 15:00:55 +0200
> > 
> > Isn't it about time we just dropped djgpp.djl altogether?
> 
> We could consider that, but I don't see how is that different from
> updating djdev203.zip.  In both cases, the linker script is not part
> of the GCC distribution; in both cases, it's possible that a new GCC
> version is released which requires changes in the linker script, which
> is in a separate distro.

It linker script available from either binutils or djdev20X.zip will be 
incompatible with new version of GCC (as it is now) we'll have to find
some way out. I think safest for users is to temporary provide this 
script (with different name) with GCC in such cases.

Currently GCC-3.0 is .0 version which will perhaps have not a very long
life time. So if such hack will be no more needed with gcc-3.0.1 (or 
update of DJGPP port of GCC we'll be able to drop it at any time)

So I rebuilt gcc-3.0 today once more (some small problems with specs
and one more serious one with handling ^Z in source file). Now both 
are fixed. Build CVS version of DJGPP with it.

Anyway I think I should upload archives I already have

> At least djdev203.zip is much smaller than Binutils, and so easier to
> update and easier to download.

What I'm afraid is not an updating of binutils or djdev, but requiring to 
update more packages at time, that leaves more possibilities to mess 
things up.

Andris