Date: Sun, 15 Aug 1999 11:59:45 +0300 (IDT)
From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
X-Sender: eliz AT is
To: George Ryot <ryot AT Bigfoot DOT COM>
cc: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
Subject: Re: Installing DJGPP
In-Reply-To: <37b42bde.22816438@news.clara.net>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.91.990815115442.1935L-100000@is>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Reply-To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To: listserv AT delorie DOT com
Precedence: bulk


On Thu, 12 Aug 1999, George Ryot wrote:

> Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il> wrote:
> 
> > > Does that mean that we will have gcc, gxx and gpp?
> > 
> > Yes.
> 
> That raises more questions, but I'll hang on to those for now. :)

I don't see any questions here.  gxx and gpp are functionally equivalent 
but programmatically different programs.  The reason for introducing gxx 
as part of djdevNNN.zip was that at the time, the g++ compiler driver was 
not yet ported to DJGPP.  The reason for not removing gxx from djdev now 
that we do have the ported g++ is that someone might rely on its unique 
mode of operation.  In my experience, features should seldom if at all be 
removed, because that bears a risk of breaking working applications.

From the user's point of view, this shouldn't matter, since as I said the 
programs are functionally equivalent.

> In general though, is it safe to assume that files with the latest
> timestamps should be used

Yes, it is safe.

> Or, as your other post about the use of unzip -o implies, does
> it not matter?

In this particular case of cxxfilt, it doesn't matter.