Message-ID: <002701c31697$cd513570$0100a8c0@acp42g>
From: "Andrew Cottrell" <acottrel AT ihug DOT com DOT au>
To: <djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com>
Cc: <rich AT phekda DOT freeserve DOT co DOT uk>, "Andris Pavenis" <pavenis AT latnet DOT lv>
References: <200305071759 DOT h47HxQte028947 AT speedy DOT ludd DOT luth DOT se> <200305072355 DOT 16047 DOT pavenis AT latnet DOT lv> <200305072055 DOT h47KtG6q010180 AT envy DOT delorie DOT com> <200305080936 DOT 52719 DOT pavenis AT latnet DOT lv> <010101c31617$29c4fb60$0100a8c0 AT acp42g> <200305091703 DOT h49H33VI015329 AT envy DOT delorie DOT com>
Subject: Re: (fwd) Re: SIGILL 386 (illegal opcode)
Date: Sat, 10 May 2003 11:59:32 +1000
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1158
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165
Reply-To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com

> > For the next alpha release do you think we should switch to GCC 3.2.3 or
> > move to 3.3 snapshots with the assumption that GCC 3.3 is realeased
before
> > the 2.04 is released?
> >
> > I don't have the time to build both sets of packages, but I can build
the
> > files with GCC 3.3 and upload them to clio and then when GCC 3.3 is
released
> > then these could become the next alpha after gcc 3.3 is released.
>
> If all else were equal, I'd prefer the 3.3 branch.  That would give us
> some testing on gcc 3.3 also.
From a email from Andris it looks like 3.3 will be out way before the 2.04
is released.

I will transition over to using GCC 3.3 snapshots and fix the docs and when
I finish this I will upload a bleeding edge release to clio for people to
check out.

Andrew