Subject: Re: Available for test: gcc-3.1.1-1, gcc2-2.95.3-6, and gcc-mingw-3_1-20020516-1
From: Charles Wilson <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 09 Jul 2002 11:54:55 -0400
Newsgroups: gmane.os.cygwin

Paul Butcher wrote:

> 
> Can I put another vote in for this one - 

No.  :-)

> the lack of objC in recent cygwin 
> gcc builds has been a real problem forcing people to use the mingw gcc.  I've 
> recently compiled gcc V3.1 with cygwin including objC with no problem so 
> there doesn't seem to be much "support" needed.  The size added to the 
> overall package is negligable, certainly compared to F77 which probably ought 
> to be separately packaged, like ADA.
> 
> (It works even better if you replace the libobjc with that from GNUstep as 
> this allows DLLs and makes the runtime a DLL.)
> 
> Otherwise well done for getting gcc 3.x into cygwin build at last - look 
> forward to the fully released version when ready.  Will be interesting if you 
> can get libgcj working too as you're currently trying to do.

It's too early to worry about ADDITIONAL front ends.  Let's make sure 
that the CURRENT front ends provided by gcc-2.95.3-5 will not be BROKEN 
  by an upgrade to the cygwin-special gcc-3.1.1.

That means gcc, g++ (maybe fortran), since ONLY those three front ends 
are provided by cygwin-special gcc-2.95.3-5.

After the bugs in THOSE frontends are squashed, then we can *talk* about 
additional frontends, but not until then.

(IMO, the current focus on libgcj/java frontend is misguided, for the 
same reasons...but hey, that's just my opinion)

--Chuck

--
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/