Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Message-ID: <3C46532F.2050300@computer.org> Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2002 20:29:35 -0800 From: Tim Prince User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:0.9.4) Gecko/20011126 Netscape6/6.2.1 X-Accept-Language: en-us MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Laurence F. Wood" CC: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Subject: Re: When will GCC 3 ship with Cygwin? References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Laurence F. Wood wrote: > GCC 3 has problems according to: http://aros.ca.sandia.gov/~cljanss/mpqc/mpqc-html-2.0.1/compile.html#compile > That Sandia page deprecates only gcc-3.0 and 3.01, not the current releases, and appears to have little to do with cygwin. Even the mpi lam pages would give you more current information about gcc versions for mpi on linux, if that's your concern. Many linux users have moved beyond 2.95 already. Certainly, it's a big step from 2.95.x to 3.x.x for people who care about details of the C++ libraries, but I don't see any problem for the mpi applications I'm dealing with on Windows or linux in moving to current releases when the system maintainers are ready. I see more incentive to move to gcc-3.1, but I won't argue that it's time to do so now. I don't see that the proposal to drop support for gcc versions using coff is aimed directly at cygwin, nor do I see how it should affect our attitude about which gcc version to prefer. -- Tim Prince tprince AT computer DOT org -- 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/