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
Message-ID:	<20030217161319.37758.qmail@web10001.mail.yahoo.com>
Date:	Mon, 17 Feb 2003 08:13:19 -0800 (PST)
From:	Dalibor Topic <robilad AT yahoo DOT com>
Subject:	Re: Is gcc 2 still supported in cygwin at all?
To:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
In-Reply-To:	<20030217153817.GA3564@redhat.com>
MIME-Version:	1.0

--- Christopher Faylor <cgf-cygwin AT cygwin DOT com> wrote:
> It's supported, but, like everything, unless you can
> demonstrate with
> a *simple* test case that there is actually a gcc
> problem (which is
> unlikely) rather than a programming error (which is
> more likely), you
> aren't apt to get much help.

thanks, that's a quick reply ;)

I'll see what I can produce, but I don't have high
hopes. Is it a reasonable tactic to nail down the bug
to compare gcc assembler output for a single function
between i386-cygwin and i386-linux? Can I expect them
to be similar for the same version of the compiler
when I compile them with the same flags?

cheers,
dalibor topic

__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Shopping - Send Flowers for Valentine's Day
http://shopping.yahoo.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 -