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
From: "Piyush Kumar" <piyush AT acm DOT org>
To: <cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
Subject: RE: GCC 3.0.2 Prerelease
Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2001 22:02:05 -0400
Message-ID: <OJEKLJMDIMFOIAMJJNNCEEFJCDAA.piyush@acm.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2911.0)
In-Reply-To: <20011021213003.A5853@redhat.com>
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000
Importance: Normal

>
> On Sun, Oct 21, 2001 at 09:29:36PM -0400, Piyush Kumar wrote:
> >Have u already built the pre-release! Or has someone else?  If yes, is
> >there some directions on what needs to be done! Where should I goto to
> >look at this kind of stuff in the future.  Any ideas!
>
> I have no plans on building gcc 3.0.2, currently.  I'm the gcc maintainer,
> although I have asked a few times for volunteers to take this over.
>

Maybe someday I'm good enough to take over this! For now I'm struggling
to just use the snapshots :)


> >I didnt find any one talking about the GCC 3.0.2 pre-release in the
> >cygwin mailing list, so asked it in the gcc mailing list.  I will post
> >my questions to the cygwin mailing list from now on.
>
> It's a safe bet that I will never go to the effort of building a *pre*
> release.  That would just be a lot of work for no real gain.  If/when
> gcc 3.x becomes the official cygwin release, I'll probably base it
> on an official gcc release.
>

If u released a gcc that didnt work well on Cygwin, I'm sure
I would be one of the first people to complain ;)

> Ok.  I have a reason.  The reason is that it is cruicial that we have a
> known stable/good version of gcc for our applications.  Releasing a
> version of gcc with code generation bugs would be catastrophic.  There
> is a higher probability that a real gcc release would be stable than
> some random prelease or CVS release.

Now that I started compiling stuff myself, after waiting for so long for
gcc 3.0.1 on the mirror sites...I realize that its not a bad idea to wait
a bit more and get something that works. :)

--Piyush


--
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/