Date: Tue, 06 Nov 2001 09:40:36 +0200
From: "Eli Zaretskii" <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
Sender: halo1 AT zahav DOT net DOT il
To: Eric Rudd <rudd AT cyberoptics DOT com>
Message-Id: <2950-Tue06Nov2001094036+0200-eliz@is.elta.co.il>
X-Mailer: emacs 21.1.50 (via feedmail 8 I) and Blat ver 1.8.9
CC: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
In-reply-to: <3BE71CF1.60789A68@cyberoptics.com> (message from Eric Rudd on
	Mon, 05 Nov 2001 17:12:49 -0600)
Subject: Re: ANNOUNCE: gcc-3.0.2 for DJGPP
References: <Pine DOT SUN DOT 3 DOT 91 DOT 1011105165632 DOT 29647C-100000 AT is> <3BE71CF1 DOT 60789A68 AT cyberoptics DOT com>
Reply-To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
Errors-To: nobody AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To: listserv AT delorie DOT com
Precedence: bulk

> From: Eric Rudd <rudd AT cyberoptics DOT com>
> Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.djgpp
> Date: Mon, 05 Nov 2001 17:12:49 -0600
> 
> No, it's not a joke.  Of what importance is it to the user that one
> has, for instance, ports of BNU 2.7 and GCC 3.x both billed as
> "ports to DJGPP v2.x", when those tools can't be used together?

The tools _can_ be used together if you observe their
interdependencies.  Older versions of the compiler require older
versions of Binutils, etc.

You seem to be suggesting a finer subdivision into compatible
groups.  This is only relevant to GCC and Binutils (and, to much
lesser extent, GDB).  The rest of the toolchain--the vast
majority--is compatible without restriction.