Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2001 11:20:25 +0300
From: "Eli Zaretskii" <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
Sender: halo1 AT zahav DOT net DOT il
To: pavenis AT lanet DOT lv
Message-Id: <9743-Sat23Jun2001112024+0300-eliz@is.elta.co.il>
X-Mailer: Emacs 20.6 (via feedmail 8.3.emacs20_6 I) and Blat ver 1.8.9
CC: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
In-reply-to: <3B339CB9.13700.D9FD74@localhost> (pavenis@lanet.lv)
Subject: Re: gcc 3.0 released
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) <3B339CB9 DOT 13700 DOT D9FD74 AT localhost>
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

> From: pavenis AT lanet DOT lv
> Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2001 19:30:01 +0300
> 
> 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)

If we think GCC 3.0 will be short-lived, and if we have a reason to
believe this particular problem will go away in the next minor
release, perhaps we shouldn't provide 3.0 at all.

But I was under the impression that the changes in the linker script
will be needed in future versions as well.  Was I mistaken?