Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2002 15:33:50 +0200
From: Laurynas Biveinis <lauras AT softhome DOT net>
X-Mailer: The Bat! (v1.61) Personal
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
Message-ID: <30423979089.20021017153350@softhome.net>
To: sandmann AT clio DOT rice DOT edu (Charles Sandmann)
CC: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Subject: Re: 2.03 vs 3.2
In-Reply-To: <10210160628.AA18741@clio.rice.edu>
References: <10210160628 DOT AA18741 AT clio DOT rice DOT edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 17 Oct 2002 13:31:42.0276 (UTC) FILETIME=[8797D040:01C275E1]
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

> No offense - but I believe there are way too many changes here for a
> safe and timely refresh.  There were other changes required to make the
> GCC 3.x build work (such as adding volatiles to some asm blocks) which
> I didn't see here.  Some of the changes seem to be just to supress 
> warnings.  The volume of the changes (and testing necessary to make sure
> something new wasn't broken) scares me witless.

> I was thinking we might change 5 or 6 build files.  This is a more massive 
> set of changes than the u1 fixes for Win2K/XP support plus all known bugs,
> and that was a several month beta.

I understand. Certainly there are a lot of cosmetic fixes, and I've
missed asm volatiles. I understand why this patch will stay in my
local tree. (or gets dumped as soon as it stops working).

Laurynas