Mailing-List:	contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Subscribe:	<mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Archive:	<http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post:	<mailto:cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help:	<mailto:cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/#faqs>
Sender:	cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Delivered-To:	mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Date:	Sat, 6 Apr 2002 22:24:30 -0500
From:	Christopher Faylor <cgf AT redhat DOT com>
To:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Subject:	Re: fastcall for gcc
Message-ID:	<20020407032430.GC27912@redhat.com>
Reply-To:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
References:	<FC169E059D1A0442A04C40F86D9BA76008AC5D AT itdomain003 DOT itdomain DOT net DOT au>
Mime-Version:	1.0
In-Reply-To:	<FC169E059D1A0442A04C40F86D9BA76008AC5D@itdomain003.itdomain.net.au>
User-Agent:	Mutt/1.3.23.1i

On Sun, Apr 07, 2002 at 09:12:46AM +1000, Robert Collins wrote:
>Anyway, should I take this as "No, cygwin gcc doesn't need FASTCALL"?

You can take it as a "I'm not really interested in making another 2.95
release".

I would also rather not maintain local tweaks if I can help it.

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 -