Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Subscribe: <mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>
List-Archive: <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post: <mailto:cygwin AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>
List-Help: <mailto:cygwin-help AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/#faqs>
Sender: cygwin-owner AT sources DOT redhat DOT com
Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin AT sources DOT redhat DOT com
Message-ID: <A9E96A79C068D211A6A90000C07BDF0D88F2C0@crtsmail.corp.riotinto.org>
From: "Billinghurst, David (CRTS)" <David DOT Billinghurst AT riotinto DOT com>
To: cygwin AT sources DOT redhat DOT com
Subject: RE: gcc-2.96 progress
Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2000 06:09:51 -0000
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21)
Content-Type: text/plain

I still can't bootstrap the latest (20000918) snapshot on NT4 SP6.  Seems to
be due to garbage collection changes in gcc and may be a mmap problem.  See
gcc-bugs mailing list for details.

> -----Original Message-----
> From:	Tim Prince [SMTP:tprince AT computer DOT org]
> Sent:	Wednesday, 20 September 2000 15:37
> To:	cygwin AT sources DOT redhat DOT com
> Subject:	gcc-2.96 progress
> 
> I've been testing gcc-2.96 snapshots, mostly on cygwin, for quite a while,
> and yesterday's version provides a satisfactory g77 for
> the first time in many months.  A noticeable difference is that the
> options -Os and -O2 at last live up to their intentions; -O2 is
> as fast as anything and -Os produces smaller code.  I'm not so impressed
> with the reliability of the gcc or g++ compilers, given the
> inability to complete a bootstrap and the number of make check failures in
> g++ and its libraries, but it does look like progress.
> g77 runs make check and many other tests with the same result as on linux,
> aside from the continued habit of dejagnu of running the
> tests twice.
> 
> I've made a long overdue revision of the procedure description for
> building gcc on cygwin, at
> http://members.aol.com/n8tm/cygwingccg77.htm If anyone has ways to make it
> better, please let me know; there's much room for
> improvement.  Yes, I know the reasons why some of the steps I had to take
> aren't recommended.  But anyway, gcc/g77 performs in the
> same league with the Compaq, Intel, and Lahey compilers on my T20 laptop,
> and the cygwin and gcc developers deserve a great deal of
> credit.
> 
> 
> --
> Want to unsubscribe from this list?
> Send a message to cygwin-unsubscribe AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com

--
Want to unsubscribe from this list?
Send a message to cygwin-unsubscribe AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com