Mail Archives: cygwin/2003/03/12/12:56:48
I thought I had a legitimate concern and question, not one that deserved
"just" a sarcastic response.
It would be easy to accendentally release things for Cygwin that are ABI
incompatible with Cygwin's gcc.
Why do we persist this way? I would be happy to do the necessary leg work
to make vanilla gcc the same as Cygwin gcc.
With Redhat's influence on the free software world, I would think,
mistakenly, I guess, that Cygwin local patches would be short-lived,
migrating relatively quickly back to the official sources. What is wrong
with this assumption?
Just trying to understand and help out, not cause problems or insult.
Thanks.
Christopher Faylor wrote:
FWIW, I build cygwin itself with an unpatched version of gcc several times
a day.
Brian Ford wrote:
Gee. I hope Cygwin, and anything else you compile with that compiler
for Cygwin, does not have structures containing doubles. Without
MASK_ALIGN_DOUBLE in TARGET_SUBTARGET_DEFAULT of gcc/config/i386/cygwin.h,
the standard Cygwin compiler and vanilla gcc are ABI incompatible.
Doesn't this seem bad?
Christopher Faylor wrote:
Oh, it seems horrific. Now I won't be able to sleep at night. Thanks a
lot.
--
Brian Ford
Senior Realtime Software Engineer
VITAL - Visual Simulation Systems
FlightSafety International
Phone: 314-551-8460
Fax: 314-551-8444
--
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 -