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
Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2000 20:23:56 -0800
From: Richard Henderson <rth AT redhat DOT com>
To: DJ Delorie <dj AT delorie DOT com>
Cc: zackw AT Stanford DOT EDU, Kelley DOT Cook AT home DOT com, Cygwin AT sources DOT redhat DOT com,
        gcc-bugs AT gcc DOT gnu DOT org, gcc-patches AT gcc DOT gnu DOT org
Subject: Re: Reason for cygwin GCC 2.97 non-bootstrap found
Message-ID: <20001120202356.A17461@redhat.com>
References: <200011202245 DOT eAKMjjN27680 AT plmlir3 DOT mail DOT eds DOT com> <20001120154222 DOT O17712 AT wolery DOT stanford DOT edu> <20001120192414 DOT D17317 AT redhat DOT com> <20001120193449 DOT Y17712 AT wolery DOT stanford DOT edu> <20001120194446 DOT A17399 AT redhat DOT com> <200011210401 DOT XAA10968 AT envy DOT delorie DOT com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-Mailer: Mutt 0.95.5i
In-Reply-To: <200011210401.XAA10968@envy.delorie.com>; from DJ Delorie on Mon, Nov 20, 2000 at 11:01:30PM -0500

On Mon, Nov 20, 2000 at 11:01:30PM -0500, DJ Delorie wrote:
> > IMO there's no pressing reason to do _any_ of it in libiberty,
> 
> The original patches included an implementation of valloc() in
> libiberty, for systems that didn't have one, so that ggc could rely on
> a working valloc.

The point being?  There's _still_ no reason it _must_ be done
in libiberty.


r~

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