Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2001 22:03:36 +0300
From: "Eli Zaretskii" <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
Sender: halo1 AT zahav DOT net DOT il
To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Message-Id: <2593-Thu12Jul2001220335+0300-eliz@is.elta.co.il>
X-Mailer: Emacs 20.6 (via feedmail 8.3.emacs20_6 I) and Blat ver 1.8.9
In-reply-to: <3B4DF103.11332.D60645@localhost> (pavenis@lanet.lv)
Subject: Re: Comments on GCC 3.0 distribution
References: <2427-Wed11Jul2001195622+0300-eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il> <3B4DF103 DOT 11332 DOT D60645 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: Thu, 12 Jul 2001 18:48:35 +0300
> 
> Maybe. Anyway I would want to hear some more feedback about 
> binaries of gcc-3.0. I built them using current (at that time) CVS 
> version of DJGPP.

Is it wise to distribute such a major part of the development
toolchain that is based on a relatively untested library?  For
example, we've just learned that it will be unable to read any files
on Windows 2000 due to the FAT32 bit in _open.

There might be other problems and incompatibilities, for example in
the symlink support.