Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Subscribe: <mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Archive: <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post: <mailto:cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help: <mailto:cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/#faqs>
Sender: cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com
Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
From: "Stephano Mariani" <sk DOT mail AT btinternet DOT com>
To: "'Tim Prince'" <tprince AT computer DOT org>,
   "'Laurence F. Wood'" <LaurenceWood AT SunyataSystems DOT Com>
Cc: <cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
Subject: RE: When will GCC 3 ship with Cygwin?
Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2002 10:04:56 -0000
Message-ID: <000901c19f3e$6ad642e0$b400a8c0@sknet01>
X-Priority: 1 (Highest)
X-MSMail-Priority: High
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.2616
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000
In-Reply-To: <3C46532F.2050300@computer.org>
Importance: High

Just a suggestion:
Perhaps it might be wise to ship both the gcc versions (as separate
packages in setup, not just different versions of the gcc package),
and
default to the 2.95.3, thereby allowing users who wish to use the
current 3 branch to do so, while not breaking anything for the other
users.

Stephano Mariani


> -----Original Message-----
> From: cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com [mailto:cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com] On
> Behalf Of Tim Prince
> Sent: 17 January 2002 04:30
> To: Laurence F. Wood
> Cc: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
> Subject: Re: When will GCC 3 ship with Cygwin?
>
> 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/





--
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/