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 Message-ID: <20020712123547.71149.qmail@web21010.mail.yahoo.com> Date: Fri, 12 Jul 2002 05:35:47 -0700 (PDT) From: Nicholas Wourms Subject: Re: Available for test: gcc-3.1.1-2 gcc2-2.95.3-8 To: Charles Wilson Cc: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com In-Reply-To: <3D2E5C1B.9050604@ece.gatech.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii --- Charles Wilson wrote: > > gcc2 is supposed to be going away someday (soon). > > > As long as there are (supported) C++ libraries that use the 2.95.3 ABI, > we'll need gcc2. E.g. libncurses6++, and the others that were > mentioned onlist, unless gcc-3.1.1 goes gold before they do. I have to agree with Chuck on this one, we shouldn't be so ready to say gcc2 will go away soon. I don't think people realize how much of a PITA it is to re-port applications that are intertwined with libstc++v2'ism to a ISO/C++ compliant version which will compile against libstc++v3. Let me say that it is *NOT* fun, especially when it requires 100's if not 1000's of lines of changes in code. I'm for keeping it as you currently have it, an optional package, but there for backwards compatibility. I guess all I'm saying is that we should considier gcc2, once it goes gold, to be like perl-5.005, frozen for features but still updatable for major bugs. Cheers, Nicholas __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Sign up for SBC Yahoo! Dial - First Month Free http://sbc.yahoo.com -- 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/