From: Kai T. <kti...@go...> - 2009-09-14 13:06:53
|
2009/9/14 Wolfgang Glas <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 > Hi Wolfgang, Well, better build for 4.4.1 instead. This gives us for i?86 better information. The x64 build should be done with 4.4.2 (prerelease), as there were major changes with big impact. As 4.4.2 is nearly stable (some few issues are pending of not that much impact in comparision to 4.4.1), I would say try it with this version better. Cheers, Kai -- | (\_/) This is Bunny. Copy and paste | (='.'=) Bunny into your signature to help | (")_(") him gain world domination |