Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help@cygwin.com; run by ezmlm
List-Subscribe: <mailto:cygwin-subscribe@cygwin.com>
List-Archive: <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post: <mailto:cygwin@cygwin.com>
List-Help: <mailto:cygwin-help@cygwin.com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/#faqs>
Sender: cygwin-owner@cygwin.com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin@cygwin.com
Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin@cygwin.com
Date: Sat, 6 Apr 2002 22:24:30 -0500
From: Christopher Faylor <cgf@redhat.com>
To: cygwin@cygwin.com
Subject: Re: fastcall for gcc
Message-ID: <20020407032430.GC27912@redhat.com>
Reply-To: cygwin@cygwin.com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin@cygwin.com
References: <FC169E059D1A0442A04C40F86D9BA76008AC5D@itdomain003.itdomain.net.au>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <FC169E059D1A0442A04C40F86D9BA76008AC5D@itdomain003.itdomain.net.au>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.23.1i

On Sun, Apr 07, 2002 at 09:12:46AM +1000, Robert Collins wrote:
>Anyway, should I take this as "No, cygwin gcc doesn't need FASTCALL"?

You can take it as a "I'm not really interested in making another 2.95
release".

I would also rather not maintain local tweaks if I can help it.

cgf

--
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/