Re: [Mingw-w64-public] mingw-w64-qt4 packages, binutils fuzz.

[Wolfgang G. <wol...@ev...>]

Kai Tietz schrieb:
> 2009/9/14 Wolfgang Glas <wol...@ev...>:
>> JonY schrieb:
>>> On 9/14/2009 02:46, Wolfgang Glas wrote:
[snip]
>>> Sourceware binutils CVS HEAD is generally stable. Version numbers like
>>> 2.20.51 are development snapshots (the HEAD snapshots gets updated
>>> daily), while 2.19.1 is a released to the public version.
>> OK, I've found the following recent sourceware binutils packages:
>>
>> binutils-2.19.51.tar.bz2        2009/09/04 07:42        18 057 370
>> binutils-2.19.90.tar.bz2        2009/09/10 13:58        17 415 613
>> binutils-2.20.51.tar.bz2        2009/09/14 07:41        18 079 354
>>
>> Which one should I try in order to get a maximal test coverage for gcc-4.4.2?
>> Will a 2.20.x version needed for mingw-w64-4.4.2 or is 2.20 only needed for a
>> shared libc++ build? Is 2.19.90 nore stable than 2.19.90 ?
>
> to preferred versions of binutils are 2.19.90 and 2.20.x (I assume we
> will release already with 2.20.x)

i Kai,

  I will then try to augment mingw-w64-gcc-4.4.0-1 with binutils-2.19.90 and
current CVS's HEAD of mingw-w64-headers. I will then try to build
omniorb/libxml2/qt-4 and give you feedback of my mileage.

  Does this configuration give you reasonable quality data for you upcoming
gcc-4.4.2 based release?

  Or should I push binutils to 2.20 and try a shared libstdc++ build?

  Regards,

    Wolfgang