Hi folks,

            Please forgive the length of the post.  I wanted to be sure that everyone understood what I am attempting to communicate here.

On 19 May 2004 at 6:58, Earnie Boyd wrote:

> Wu Yongwei wrote:
>
> >Danny, I searched online and found that the system requirements for
> >Windows 98 were 486DX/66MHz.  So I doubt the possibility of
> >implementing InterlockedCompareExchange on an i386 CPU.
> > 
> >
> Let's move to say support for Win95 by MinGW is obsoleted.  Anyone
> wanting to maintain Win95 support should make plans to use older
> development software and not upgrade.

Hmm...

I hesitate to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

            As unused as Win95 is, people still use it.  I have even heard of situations where people are running the latest processors for the Win95 OS.  Granted, they are few and far between.  And, using the latest processors for Win95 OS, imho, is somewhat counter-productive.

            Even so, that doesn't mean people don't want to use Win95 OS.

            (I do not use Win95 any longer.  However, I do use both Win98 and NT4.)

            I do agree, Earnie, that deprecation (equivalent to the deprecation of dlltool/dllwrap) might be an appropriate course of action in this situation, ie. at least where Win95 OS is concerned.  Hardware, however, is a different consideration.

Pulling it all together:

Wu wrote:

> On Wed, 2004-05-19 at 18:58, Earnie Boyd wrote:
> > Wu Yongwei wrote:
> >
> > >Danny, I searched online and found that the system requirements for
> > >Windows 98 were 486DX/66MHz.  So I doubt the possibility of implementing
> > >InterlockedCompareExchange on an i386 CPU.
> > > 
> > >
> > Let's move to say support for Win95 by MinGW is obsoleted.  Anyone
> > wanting to maintain Win95 support should make plans to use older
> > development software and not upgrade.
> >
> > Earnie.
>
> Hi, Earnie, thanks for speaking up.  However, is it a little overkill to
> obsolete Windows 95 for a function not really used?  Either solution in my
> e-mail on Monday should work (and makes no difference currently since not
> really used).
>
> Regards,
>
> Yongwei


Danny wrote:


>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Earnie Boyd"
> | Wu Yongwei wrote:
> |
> | >Danny, I searched online and found that the system requirements for
> | >Windows 98 were 486DX/66MHz.  So I doubt the possibility of implementing
> | >InterlockedCompareExchange on an i386 CPU. | > | > | Let's move to say
> support for Win95 by MinGW is obsoleted.  Anyone | wanting to maintain Win95
> support should make plans to use older | development software and not
> upgrade. | Wow,  we not just talking about the developer but about the
> end-user.  Are you saying that the mingw toolset should not support
> building libstcdc++-dependent apps  for W95 users. Before we do that, I
> would say just make the function we're talking about always return -1 (not
> implemented)   Its not currently used in libstdc++ anyway.

            I expect that Earnie will correct me if I am wrong on this.  Danny, my sense is that he is not talking about disabling mingw toolset support for building  libstdc++-dependent apps under Win95.

            If he were, however, I would agree with you, Danny.  A good compromise would be to simply disable specific functions that simply do not exist under the Windows api originally used for Win95.  Even so, I am not exactly sure how much work that might encompass.

            Paul G.