Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2001 11:10:28 -0400
Message-Id: <200108241510.LAA11989@envy.delorie.com>
X-Authentication-Warning: envy.delorie.com: dj set sender to dj AT envy DOT delorie DOT com using -f
From: DJ Delorie <dj AT delorie DOT com>
To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
In-reply-to: <3B8673CE.7807.117624D@localhost> (pavenis@lanet.lv)
Subject: Re: gcc-3.0.1 and Win2k
References: <3B8664C8 DOT 23360 DOT DCAE88 AT localhost> (pavenis AT lanet DOT lv) <3B8673CE DOT 7807 DOT 117624D 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


> > Anyway, we must solve this problem somehow.  The current situation is
> > IMHO unacceptable.
> 
> I think there is nothing bad  of asking to have GCC and binutils 
> versions to be used to build DJGPP runtime be in a reasonable range.
> We don't need to support older versions.

I'm OK with saying that djgpp version Z is only supported with gcc
version X and binutils version Y, or newer, if we must.  I'm OK with
saying gcc version A requires binutils version B or higher too.  This
is semi-standard practice elsewhere, we just need to make sure that
the uninformed user does the right thing by default most of the time.