On Sat, 06 Dec 2008 07:55:25 +0100, Danny Backx <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Actually I think it's time to move to new versions of the tools. That > includes gcc itself. Vincent has done excellent work on getting a cegcc > to work based on gcc-4.3.2, we should pick that up. > > Opinions ? > > Danny > > I agree with the fact we need to move to newer versions and thanks for the excellent work but contrary to Pedro I am "smart monkey" I just analysed differences between a vanilla gcc and cegcc. Now there is always the same question, should we start from a gcc 4.3.2 or a gcc 4.4.0 ? I know that 4.4 is not really out and maybe a bit young but in the same time some work has been done to improve windows area (see http://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/WindowsGCCImprovementsGSoC2008). Besides I think Pedro already managed to make a cegcc based on gcc 4.4. But in the same time maybe it would be wiser to start from a more tested compiler ...
I don't have enough experience so I would like to have Pedro's opinion. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ SF.Net email is Sponsored by MIX09, March 18-20, 2009 in Las Vegas, Nevada. The future of the web can't happen without you. Join us at MIX09 to help pave the way to the Next Web now. Learn more and register at http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;208669438;13503038;i?http://2009.visitmix.com/ _______________________________________________ Cegcc-devel mailing list Cegcc-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/cegcc-devel
