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 Date: Sat, 17 Aug 2002 21:56:52 -0400 From: Christopher Faylor To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Subject: Re: suggestion for cygwin gcc-3.2 Message-ID: <20020818015652.GD15437@redhat.com> Reply-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.23.1i On Sun, Aug 18, 2002 at 12:25:03AM +0000, Gareth Pearce wrote: >However cgf has spoken, hes the gcc maintainer here so its his call, he does >have a valid point (it is apparent that plenty of users builder their on gcc >from gcc sources not mingw branch and any such user would have to face the >breakage which we are all trying to avoid), but 'it was worth a try(tm)'. So far, all of the changes in the cygwin gcc branch have been things that I think have a likelihood of being accepted into the mainstream. Either that or there are changes that require more work for the trunk but are ok for the branch. The basic goal is to not have a cygwin branch. Adding a feature to work around the core behavior of gcc would insure that the cygwin branch lives in perpetuity. That goes against my goal for gcc. The goal is to have little or no work for cgf or Danny. Keeping a cygwin-only change would mean constantly keeping a branch up-to-date. That's not something that I relish doing. However, a number of gcc people (like DJ for instance) report to me, so I will ask a couple of them about this behavior and see if they can offer any insight. cgf -- 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/