Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help@sourceware.cygnus.com; run by ezmlm List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-owner@sources.redhat.com Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin@sources.redhat.com Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2000 23:24:50 -0500 Message-Id: <200011210424.XAA11136@envy.delorie.com> X-Authentication-Warning: envy.delorie.com: dj set sender to dj@envy.delorie.com using -f From: DJ Delorie To: rth@redhat.com CC: zackw@Stanford.EDU, Kelley.Cook@home.com, Cygwin@sources.redhat.com, gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org, gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org In-reply-to: <20001120202356.A17461@redhat.com> (message from Richard Henderson on Mon, 20 Nov 2000 20:23:56 -0800) Subject: Re: Reason for cygwin GCC 2.97 non-bootstrap found References: <200011202245.eAKMjjN27680@plmlir3.mail.eds.com> <20001120154222.O17712@wolery.stanford.edu> <20001120192414.D17317@redhat.com> <20001120193449.Y17712@wolery.stanford.edu> <20001120194446.A17399@redhat.com> <200011210401.XAA10968@envy.delorie.com> <20001120202356.A17461@redhat.com> > The point being? There's _still_ no reason it _must_ be done > in libiberty. No, but a generic valloc would make sense in libiberty. If the final solution includes a generic valloc implementation, it might make more sense to put that in libiberty rather than gcc. You're right that it's not a *pressing* reason, but it is something to consider. -- Want to unsubscribe from this list? Send a message to cygwin-unsubscribe@sourceware.cygnus.com