X-Recipient: archive-cygwin@delorie.com X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.7 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FROM,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,T_TO_NO_BRKTS_FREEMAIL X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <4CD178DE.7010308@cygwin.com> References: <21794C64742846718853014B087D0E6F@cit.wayne.edu> <4CD178DE.7010308@cygwin.com> Date: Wed, 3 Nov 2010 19:25:32 +0000 Message-ID: Subject: Re: Is part of gcc3 missing? From: Andy Koppe To: cygwin@cygwin.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-IsSubscribed: yes 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 3 November 2010 14:59, Larry Hall (Cygwin) wrote: > On 11/3/2010 10:10 AM, Lee Maschmeyer wrote: >> >> Hmm. Is that really the best approach unless absolutely necessary? "That >> doesn't work so do something else" has always struck me as a less than >> ideal >> approach to debugging. :-) Is it possible that caml could be repaired so >> it >> doesn't depend on GCC4? > > I'm not sure "repaired" is the right word for this I don't think it is. Gcc-4 is Cygwin 1.7's system compiler, so there's nothing wrong with (parts of) the ocaml package depending on it. But I guess the ability to switch the default compiler back to gcc-3 should come with a health warning: it may break stuff. Time to get rid of the gcc alternatives setup perhaps, and require users to specify gcc-3 explicitly if they still want it? Andy -- 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