Mail Archives: cygwin/2006/03/18/01:03:45
Charles Wilson wrote:
> I thought there were some patches to the cygwin gcc 3.4.x version that
> had not yet been migrated to the official sources? I'd be glad to be
> wrong, however.
There's the patch that fixes throwing exceptions across DLLs (or
something like that.) I know it's been submitted by Danny but I think
it withered and he wasn't interested in championing it. The thing is,
4.x is so vastly different than 3.x that I'm not sure if it's still even
needed or not.
> Also, wasn't there some issue with the std::string implementation that
> was causing problems for both cygwin-special and mingw-special g++?
Yes, this can be fixed (with a somewhat severe performance penalty) by
configuring libstdc++ with --enable-fully-dynamic-string. There's a
patch against 3.4 that fixes this in a less invasive way, but no
equivalent for 4.x AFAIK. On this issue though even the current 3.4 gcc
packages are broken, so it wouldn't be a regression per se.
> Otherwise, if it's so simple, I don't understand why Gerrit hasn't
> released gcc-4.x as a test version, nor [OT:] why Danny hasn't released
> a gcc-4.0 candidate for mingw.
Well, I know there still some rough edges with 4.x and cygwin/mingw,
which might prevent the maintainers from deploying it just on the basis
that a somewhat-broken compiler is worse than no compiler. The last
time I tried a cygwin1.dll compiled with gcc 4.x it was nowhere close to
being functional, presumably because the stricter enforcement of
aliasing rules or more aggressive optimizations uncovered code problems.
But the person that started the thread just wanted to try GCC on his own
code, which sounded to me like the appropriate thing is just build it
and find out, since it's trivial to keep a number of independant
installed versions of gcc.
Brian
--
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
- Raw text -