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:	<028f01c2e8c3$fd4305d0$78d96f83@pomello>
From:	"Max Bowsher" <maxb AT ukf DOT net>
To:	"Brian Ford" <ford AT vss DOT fsi DOT com>, <cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
References:	<Pine DOT GSO DOT 4 DOT 44 DOT 0303121130300 DOT 2707-100000 AT eos>
Subject:	Re: cygwin gcc 3.4 and cygwin
Date:	Wed, 12 Mar 2003 18:19:58 -0000
MIME-Version:	1.0
X-Priority:	3
X-MSMail-Priority:	Normal
X-MimeOLE:	Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106

Brian Ford wrote:
> I thought I had a legitimate concern and question, not one that
> deserved "just" a sarcastic response.

Yes, it was sarcastic, but don't take it personally. Chris is *busy* and
this is quite a minor issue.

> It would be easy to accendentally release things for Cygwin that are
> ABI incompatible with Cygwin's gcc.

structs containing doubles aren't a hugely common feature. Besides, I think
Chris knows what he is doing.

> 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.

Great! Go on then! ;-)

> 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?

Redhat != Cygwin.



Max.


--
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 -