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 Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ Path: not-for-mail From: Charles Wilson Newsgroups: gmane.os.cygwin Subject: Re: Available for test: gcc-3.1.1-1, gcc2-2.95.3-6, and gcc-mingw-3_1-20020516-1 Date: Tue, 09 Jul 2002 11:54:55 -0400 Lines: 40 Message-ID: <3D2B074F.3040706@ece.gatech.edu> References: NNTP-Posting-Host: 1cust30.tnt20.atl4.da.uu.net Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: main.gmane.org 1026230039 4451 63.59.255.30 (9 Jul 2002 15:53:59 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet AT main DOT gmane DOT org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 9 Jul 2002 15:53:59 +0000 (UTC) User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:0.9.4) Gecko/20011019 Netscape6/6.2 X-Accept-Language: en-us Paul Butcher wrote: > > Can I put another vote in for this one - No. :-) > the lack of objC in recent cygwin > gcc builds has been a real problem forcing people to use the mingw gcc. I've > recently compiled gcc V3.1 with cygwin including objC with no problem so > there doesn't seem to be much "support" needed. The size added to the > overall package is negligable, certainly compared to F77 which probably ought > to be separately packaged, like ADA. > > (It works even better if you replace the libobjc with that from GNUstep as > this allows DLLs and makes the runtime a DLL.) > > Otherwise well done for getting gcc 3.x into cygwin build at last - look > forward to the fully released version when ready. Will be interesting if you > can get libgcj working too as you're currently trying to do. It's too early to worry about ADDITIONAL front ends. Let's make sure that the CURRENT front ends provided by gcc-2.95.3-5 will not be BROKEN by an upgrade to the cygwin-special gcc-3.1.1. That means gcc, g++ (maybe fortran), since ONLY those three front ends are provided by cygwin-special gcc-2.95.3-5. After the bugs in THOSE frontends are squashed, then we can *talk* about additional frontends, but not until then. (IMO, the current focus on libgcj/java frontend is misguided, for the same reasons...but hey, that's just my opinion) --Chuck -- 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/