From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: N8TM@aol.com
To: hjl@lucon.org, ak@muc.de
Cc: martin@mira.isdn.cs.tu-berlin.de, egcs@egcs.cygnus.com
Subject: Re: Problems with linking older libraries
Date: Fri, 07 May 1999 17:55:00 -0000
Message-id: <407de58.2464e4df@aol.com>
X-SW-Source: 1999-05/msg00236.html

In a message dated 5/7/99 7:14:57 AM Pacific Daylight Time, hjl@lucon.org 
writes:

> RedHat 6.0 has a modified egcs 1.1.2 which provides the binary
>  compatibility. The good news is the similar patch is in the current
>  egcs.
Binary compatibility how far back?  Would the NAG f95, supporting 
gcc-2.7.2.1, be working better with egcs now?
Tim
tprince@computer.org

From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: N8TM@aol.com
To: hjl@lucon.org, ak@muc.de
Cc: martin@mira.isdn.cs.tu-berlin.de, egcs@egcs.cygnus.com
Subject: Re: Problems with linking older libraries
Date: Mon, 31 May 1999 21:36:00 -0000
Message-ID: <407de58.2464e4df@aol.com>
X-SW-Source: 1999-05n/msg00235.html
Message-ID: <19990531213600.W1ZE0njiW3q2Sr1h0dloLVPoj_YTM7KVPMJrNh7qWW4@z>

In a message dated 5/7/99 7:14:57 AM Pacific Daylight Time, hjl@lucon.org 
writes:

> RedHat 6.0 has a modified egcs 1.1.2 which provides the binary
>  compatibility. The good news is the similar patch is in the current
>  egcs.
Binary compatibility how far back?  Would the NAG f95, supporting 
gcc-2.7.2.1, be working better with egcs now?
Tim
tprince@computer.org