Andris Pavenis wrote:
On Wed, 11 Apr 2001, Frank Heckenbach wrote:
Andris Pavenis wrote:
I see 2 problems with update to gpc-20010409:
- #ifdef GPC_2_95_3 in gpc.c is placed before any #include statement (so it's undefined). Moving it after #include statements fixes the problem
Oh yes. #-) I put them before in case any include would need MKTEMP_EACH_FILE, but III forgot that GCC_2_95_3 is only set in an include. Will fix this.
It's not used in include files AFAIK.
No, it isn't, as far as I can grep...
- Testing for exactly 2.95.3 in make-lang.in is not correct. Perhaps we should test for 2.95.[3-9] as current version in GCC_2_95 branch is already 2.95.3
My typo: in current CVS version of gcc_2_95 branch version is 2.95.4
OK -- though there may be other problems with new versions, and we'll have to care about them when the new versions are there, doing this change already now probably won't hurt. -- BTW, what about 2.96 (I think Red Hat released such a version) and 2.97 (the current development version?). Do they also have cpp0 or not yet? I must admit I'm quite confused about all these GCC/EGCS versions and I've given up trying to understand them...
For comment about gcc-2.96 see http://gcc.gnu.org. It is not an official FSF release. Perhaps one should support gcc-3.0 when it will come out. Current development branch has now version 3.1 (for example gcc 3.1 20010411 (experimental)). gcc-3_0-branch have version 3.0 (prerelease).
So there's a stable 2.95.3, a development 2.95.4, an unofficial 2.96, a development 2.97, a prerelease 3.0 and a development 3.1?!? (And the Linux kernel wants 2.91.66 for compilation.) OK, I'll stay with 2.8.1, at least then I know which version I have. ;-)
Frank