From: Hans-Bernhard Broeker Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.djgpp Subject: Re: Compiling GRX 245 Date: 10 Mar 2003 11:34:06 GMT Organization: Aachen University of Technology (RWTH) Lines: 23 Message-ID: References: <002101c2e3fc$181e0700$0300a8c0 AT rivasaiicfa DOT com DOT ar> <3E67AEC5 DOT 9AF3CA27 AT yahoo DOT com> <200303062110 DOT h26LAJD32316 AT envy DOT delorie DOT com> <3E6879B8 DOT 92765D5A AT phekda DOT freeserve DOT co DOT uk> <3e68f75a DOT sandmann AT clio DOT rice DOT edu> <3E695102 DOT A3C7FD22 AT yahoo DOT com> <8296-Sat08Mar2003112133+0200-eliz AT elta DOT co DOT il> NNTP-Posting-Host: acp3bf.physik.rwth-aachen.de X-Trace: nets3.rz.RWTH-Aachen.DE 1047296046 25519 137.226.32.75 (10 Mar 2003 11:34:06 GMT) X-Complaints-To: abuse AT rwth-aachen DOT de NNTP-Posting-Date: 10 Mar 2003 11:34:06 GMT Originator: broeker@ To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com DJ-Gateway: from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp Reply-To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com Eli Zaretskii wrote: > The v2.03 refreshes were prepared _precisely_ to remove the need for > telling users how to fix this problem (and quite a few others). I agree with this, but I do *not* agree with the apparent removal of the relevant section of the GCC README.DJ file. The patch instruction mentioning va_list used to be in there, unless memory fails me badly. Now the newest GCC binaries just assume you have updated djdev203.zip installed, but tell the user neither how to verify that fact, nor even mention the keyword "va_list" any more. If updated djdev203.zip is now a necessity to run the default GCC binary distributed, then I'd say it's time to face the facts and release that thing as djdev204.zip. It just doesn't make much sense to believe that people will update their djdev203.zip with a file of the same name if the only hint that they should do this is hidden in the README.DJ of the GCC package. People need a stronger incentive to update than that. -- Hans-Bernhard Broeker (broeker AT physik DOT rwth-aachen DOT de) Even if all the snow were burnt, ashes would remain.