Sender: rich AT phekda DOT freeserve DOT co DOT uk Message-ID: <3EE62C8B.374929B9@phekda.freeserve.co.uk> Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2003 20:07:55 +0100 From: Richard Dawe X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.77 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.2.23 i586) X-Accept-Language: de,fr MIME-Version: 1.0 To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com Subject: Re: DJGPP 2.04 alpha 2 later in the month? References: <3EE4EB66 DOT DF7891D2 AT phekda DOT freeserve DOT co DOT uk> <006401c32f3a$dde2e8f0$0100a8c0 AT acp42g> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Reply-To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com Hello. Andrew Cottrell wrote: > > > I was thinking we could do DJGPP 2.04 alpha 2 later this month. Reasons: > > > > (1) uclock now works on Windows 2000 and later. > > (2) gcc 3.2.3 has a bugfix for the struct passing issue. > > (3) A few other minor fixes that I can think of. > (4) Fix missing files docs from some of the zips. > (5) Supply LIBC patches in order to support GCC 3.3 for building LIBC > without any patches. > > Added (4) and (5). > > > The binary compatibility issue (2) is probably the main reason for > > releasing alpha 2. If people don't think that's important, then maybe > > we should wait a while longer. > > I still have the following items in my DJGPP mail box waiting for me to > check on their status to see ig I can delete them or spend time on them:- > 1 - Richard:- fstat, fd_props and inventing nodes patch - awaiting copyright > paperwork Don't wait for the paperwork. I only asked my employer about the paperwork today. (I was waiting a while, to see how things went with my new job.) Besides, I still have work to do on the patch. I need to test it with a network redirector other than the one built into Windows - XFS was the one Eli suggested. > 2 - Andrew:- GCC 3.3 patchs - need to be re-worked > 3 - KB Williams:- cygnus LIBC tests patch > > I also have a number of GCC 3.3 specific issues that have been sent over the > last month that are also waiting for time. I don't think gcc 3.3 support is a reason to delay the alpha. Getting some serious testing of nmalloc is more important IMNSHO. Besides, we have several more releases to get a fix for gcc 3.3 in. ;) Bye, Rich =] -- Richard Dawe [ http://www.phekda.freeserve.co.uk/richdawe/ ]