X-Recipient: archive-cygwin@delorie.com X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Date: Thu, 22 Jul 2010 13:44:12 -0400 From: Christopher Faylor To: cygwin@cygwin.com Subject: Re: cygport cross-compiling beta1 Message-ID: <20100722174411.GA30543@ednor.casa.cgf.cx> Reply-To: cygwin@cygwin.com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin@cygwin.com References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help@cygwin.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-owner@cygwin.com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin@cygwin.com Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin@cygwin.com On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 10:27:33AM -0700, Karl M wrote: >> Subject: Re: cygport cross-compiling beta1 >> From: yselkowitz >> Date: Wed, 21 Jul 2010 03:21:44 -0500 We already saw most of this in the header. >>> But...somebody out there might have (cygwin) code that doesn't compile >>> with gcc4. They ought to fix their code, but...this is not an ideal world. >> >> Distros maintain patches for still-in-use older software to fix >> compatibility with new GCCs. Otherwise, yes, they'll actually have to >> fix their code. But let's face it, most distros don't support gcc-3.4 >> anymore, certainly not as a primary compiler, so why must we, >> particularly given our limited resources? >> >Couldn't this be handled by the Cygwin time machine? Please don't move discussions between mailing lists. -- Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/ Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple