Date: Tue, 15 Oct 2002 12:28:01 +0200
From: Laurynas Biveinis <lauras AT softhome DOT net>
X-Mailer: The Bat! (v1.61) Personal
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
Message-ID: <30240030515.20021015122801@softhome.net>
To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Subject: Re: 2.03 vs 3.2
In-Reply-To: <10210141948.AA19018@clio.rice.edu>
References: <10210141948 DOT AA19018 AT clio DOT rice DOT edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 15 Oct 2002 10:26:20.0953 (UTC) FILETIME=[4DF11890:01C27435]
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


> Someone mentioned they didn't believe building 2.03 with newer GCC
> should be considered; in fact the patch for bzero (?) probably breaks
> building that library function with newer GCC since the code has the 
> wrong prototype.

Could somebody elaborate on this, please?

> I'd rather spend time getting 2.04 released.

Indeed. However, 2.04 is still a few months off, and 2.03 update could
be made sooner. I think...

>> FYI, I'm slowly making my way to get 2.03 compile without warnings. I've backported
>> lots of IMO safe patches from 2.04.

> I think we should collect and document these, until we decide what to do.

I will post them there as I have full set of them.

BTW, I think we really should start using branches in future - as soon
as we don't accept new features into 2.04 we should branch it off. DJ
once objected, according to him branches are PITA to merge, however
current situation is even bigger PITA. What do you think?

Laurynas