delorie.com/archives/browse.cgi   search  
Mail Archives: cygwin/2002/08/17/20:25:09

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
X-Originating-IP: [202.7.175.28]
From: "Gareth Pearce" <tilps AT hotmail DOT com>
To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Subject: Re: suggestion for cygwin gcc-3.2
Date: Sun, 18 Aug 2002 00:25:03 +0000
Mime-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <F54ARON4U7RZQzzfWWP000061e7@hotmail.com>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 18 Aug 2002 00:25:04.0326 (UTC) FILETIME=[B2A32E60:01C2464D]


>Nicholas,
>
>If this really bugs you so much, wrap the compiler in a script that filters 
>the output to suppress the diagnostics you don't want to see. Then use the 
>script instead of directly invoking the compiler. In Make, just override 
>the default CC (or whatever) variable.

Just to point out why this isnt such a great solution to all the worlds 
problems.  If I (the theoretical me that is) do that, I have to make that 
part of the build instructions for any package I release, and have to assume 
that the diagnositic message isnt going to change so that my users who are 
compiling their own coyy of gcc which might be a different version to mine 
will have it crash and burn.

<rant - please ignore :P>
No, at the moment it looks like if I want this to change I have to spend a 
year worming my way into the gcc core and create change from within.  
Ofcourse by then, most packages will have upgraded their build systems to 
compensate (hopefully) - its only really the transition time which will 
bother people.

Besides, just ignoring the message isn't safe, it is there for a reason.

Me - who only has one package and doesnt install anything much from source 
on cygwin can live with the tiny pain, but I know from experience on an 
OSF/1 box (where i have been using gcc head for 5 months) where I have to 
compile everything from source, its quite a pain.
</rant>

However cgf has spoken, hes the gcc maintainer here so its his call, he does 
have a valid point (it is apparent that plenty of users builder their on gcc 
from gcc sources not mingw branch and any such user would have to face the 
breakage which we are all trying to avoid), but 'it was worth a try(tm)'.  
Nicholas can feel free to push further but I dont exactly have the free time 
for protracted discusions(aka hotpotato wars) at the moment (stupid thesis 
:P).

Gareth - just that guy over there, never mind him.

_________________________________________________________________
Join the world’s largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. 
http://www.hotmail.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 -


  webmaster     delorie software   privacy  
  Copyright © 2019   by DJ Delorie     Updated Jul 2019