This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Documenting tools necessary for GCC [draft]
- From: Gerald Pfeifer <pfeifer at dbai dot tuwien dot ac dot at>
- To: Tom Tromey <tromey at redhat dot com>
- Cc: Joe Buck <jbuck at synopsys dot com>, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2003 01:19:45 +0200 (CEST)
- Subject: Re: Documenting tools necessary for GCC [draft]
- References: <200305291727.NAA06347@caip.rutgers.edu><Pine.BSF.4.55.0305292158150.48044@acrux.dbai.tuwien.ac.at><200305300057.UAA12476@caip.rutgers.edu> <Pine.BSF.4.55.0305301102260.50382@acrux.dbai.tuwien.ac.at><3EE85520.10004@hotmail.com> <20030612093405.A24079@synopsys.com><87y9075jde.fsf@fleche.redhat.com>
On Thu, 12 Jun 2003, Tom Tromey wrote:
>Joe> I had been using 1.4.1 without problems up until now.
> Ranjit ran into a bug in 1.4.2 preventing him from running the libgcj
> test suite. This is in the quoted part of the message he linked to.
> Original report here:
>
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/java/2003-06/msg00117.html
So, I see two possibilities:
a) require 1.4.1 or 1.4.3 (and later), or
b) require 1.4.3 (and later).
I'll implement whatever you all agree on, but for the sake of simplicity
and because there probably _was_ a reason we currently have 1.4.2 listed
there, I'd prefer b).
Is this fine with you (especially Joe)?
Gerald
--
Gerald "Jerry" pfeifer@dbai.tuwien.ac.at http://www.pfeifer.com/gerald/