Mail Archives: cygwin/2001/10/21/21:29:22
On Sun, Oct 21, 2001 at 09:29:36PM -0400, Piyush Kumar wrote:
>Have u already built the pre-release! Or has someone else? If yes, is
>there some directions on what needs to be done! Where should I goto to
>look at this kind of stuff in the future. Any ideas!
I have no plans on building gcc 3.0.2, currently. I'm the gcc maintainer,
although I have asked a few times for volunteers to take this over.
When I think that gcc 3.0.x is sufficiently stable under Windows to be
the default compiler for cygwin, and when I have the time to backport
some -mno-cygwin patches to it, I'll probably switch over. I'm not
convinced that is the case yet.
If you have questions about cygwin releases, then the cygwin mailing
list is the place to ask them. IMO, gcc AT gcc DOT gnu DOT org is not the right
place to ask system-specific questions whether they concern cygwin,
djgpp, or Solaris.
>I didnt find any one talking about the GCC 3.0.2 pre-release in the
>cygwin mailing list, so asked it in the gcc mailing list. I will post
>my questions to the cygwin mailing list from now on.
It's a safe bet that I will never go to the effort of building a *pre*
release. That would just be a lot of work for no real gain. If/when
gcc 3.x becomes the official cygwin release, I'll probably base it
on an official gcc release.
This is a little different from the way that I handle binutils or gdb,
now that I think of it. Hmm.
Ok. I have a reason. The reason is that it is cruicial that we have a
known stable/good version of gcc for our applications. Releasing a
version of gcc with code generation bugs would be catastrophic. There
is a higher probability that a real gcc release would be stable than
some random prelease or CVS release.
cgf
--
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting: http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
- Raw text -