Re: [MiNT] MiNTLib 0.59.1 for your testing pleasure....

[Paul Wratt <paul.wratt@gmail.com>]

thanks

2010/6/13 Vincent Rivière <vincent.riviere@freesbee.fr>:
> Paul Wratt wrote:
>>
>> It sounds like gcc-2 (or gcc2) would be ok in this system, and usable
>> when needed (is there a preference to naming convention)
>
> I think the command "gcc" should be the latest gcc version available, and
> "gcc-2" the old compiler kept for lower machines.
>
> We must not spend time on old and obsolete software, but making a new
> release of gcc 2.95 would be good to:
> 1) Rename it to gcc-2
> 2) Fix the preprocessor bug with negative constants
> 3) Remove the relocation kludge for C++ constructors and similar code
> 4) Use the current MiNTLib
>
>> Obviously it is not a priority for 2.95 to have Coldfire capabilities,
>> but should be added at some point, if for no other reason than that
>> there may be a situation where it is the only answer (for whatever
>> reason?)
>
> gcc 2.95 has no support for ColdFire and will never have.
>
if an installation was using gcc-2 as its default gcc, would the
addition of CF support be of use, or would we just leave it for some
else, or another environment, to compile from source, to get CF
binaries

> --
> Vincent Rivière
>
>
>

If 2.95.3 sources were to be updated to be compiled with 4.x.x, (if I
were doing it) I would at least have a look at the current patches to
see what was involved with adding CF support. Or am I missing, or over
simplifying, something here..

Paul