Mail Archives: cygwin/2002/08/17/17:44:46
--- Christopher Faylor <cgf AT redhat DOT com> wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 17, 2002 at 05:57:43AM +0000, Gareth Pearce wrote:
> >>This may generate some flames, so flame away if you want to.
> >
> >Hmm I expected a few as well, but no replys - I better fix that at
> >least.
>
> Maybe this will qualify as a flame. People here often have very
> thin
> skins, so...
Didn't seem like it to me...
> No. I'm not going to make the cygwin gcc operate any differently
> than the standard gcc 3.2. The correct place to lobby for change
> is in the gcc mailing lists.
I'm sorry but I must respectfully disagree. It seems *quite*
apparent, from the archives, that they won't listen to reason nor are
they going to budge one iota. If Gareth and DJ couldn't sway them,
what chance do I have? It is a waste of time to discuss this on the
gcc list, thus the only outlet is this list. Seriously, though, you
have to admit that the warning is useless for the most part and
causes more harm then good? So what's the harm in changing the level
of a trivial warning? This is such an insignificant change that
would hardly warrant us being labeled a "rogue branch" which doesn't
comply with the gcc standards. Gareth made some very good
suggestions on how this could be approached, and I concur with his
evaluation of the situation.
Cheers,
Nicholas
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
HotJobs - Search Thousands of New Jobs
http://www.hotjobs.com
--
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 -