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-Authentication-Warning:	eos.vss.fsi.com: ford owned process doing -bs
Date:	Wed, 12 Mar 2003 12:43:47 -0600 (CST)
From:	Brian Ford <ford AT vss DOT fsi DOT com>
X-X-Sender:	ford AT eos
To:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Subject:	Re: cygwin gcc 3.4 and cygwin
Message-ID:	<Pine.GSO.4.44.0303121228400.2707-100000@eos>
MIME-Version:	1.0

Max Bowsher wrote:
>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.
>
We are all *busy*.  Well, ABI breakage is not normally considered a minor
issue.

I know from following the list that I am just supposed to accept Chris
this way.  But honestly, I'd rather receive no reply than one with just
sarcasim.  One with sarcasim and real content would be fine.  It takes
nearly the same amount of time to do both.

>> 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.
>

Many libraries might be affected, especially ones that deal with
images, etc.

BTW, this may not be the only issue, it is just the only one I have
bumped into so far.  I wish I could feel comfortable that it is the only
one, but with responses like this, I don't feel warm and fuzzy about
anything Cygwin.

>> 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! ;-)
>
I was hoping for an explanation of what the road block was so I wouldn't
waist time just getting that far.

Cygwin's gcc has an extensive number of patches and is pre 3.2.  There
must be a reason for this.  Maybe it is just volunteer time, but somehow I
doubt it.

>> 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.
>
Sure, but Cygwin is a Redhat product that is sold to make them money.
Depending how our porting effort goes, we may be a customer.

-- 
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 -