Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
Sender: cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Message-ID: <142260-220021223165348960@M2W078.mail2web.com>
Reply-To: lhall AT rfk DOT com
From: "lhall AT pop DOT ma DOT ultranet DOT com" <lhall AT pop DOT ma DOT ultranet DOT com>
To: mdupont777 AT yahoo DOT com, rbcollins AT cygwin DOT com, cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Subject: Re: Resolved Re: gcc-3.2-1/i686-pc-cygwin/gcc/genflags is  segfaulting
Date: Tue, 3 Dec 2002 11:53:48 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit


>From: James Michael DuPont mdupont777 AT yahoo DOT com
>Date: Tue, 3 Dec 2002 07:37:34 -0800 (PST)
>To: lhall AT rfk DOT com, rbcollins AT cygwin DOT com, cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
>Subject: Re: Resolved Re: gcc-3.2-1/i686-pc-cygwin/gcc/genflags is 
>segfaulting
<snip>

> I guess the assumption there is that
> the responder is actually purposefully withholding information.  Why
> someone  would assume that, I don't know.
>
>I dont believe that at all. 


Actually, this reference was more generic and in the context in which 
I wrote it, it doesn't really apply to your post.  You didn't get any 
response.  Prior situations on which I was ruminating are those where a
response is given but the recipient feels it's intentially incomplete.  I 
suppose one could stretch this interpretation and say it covers cases 
like yours where you don't get any answer (that would be a very incomplete 
answer! ;-) ) but that's not the issue I was discussing.  So forgive me if 
you misinterpreted this general comment as one directed solely at you.


>I was just quite suprized that noone said "oh, i am building 3.2-1 fine
>under cygwin itself". Very suprized in fact, but if chris is using the
>cross compiler, then it could be that none has recompiled this very
>version number, or if they did, saw the message or felt like answering.


Right.  Can happen, unfortunately.


>Silly me in thinking that something positive would come from making
>sarcastic jibes, it looks like I am not making any friends with my
>statements. 


Well, stranger things have happened but I think your statement suggests
that you recognize that this isn't the best avenue when looking for help.
;-)


>> Feel free to jump in and try to natively build any package which is
>> of  interest to you and report any problems you find.  Patches are
>> welcomed as well.
>
>Well since the problem as righted itself, I dont think there is any
>need, if it was reoccuring, then I would try and debug some more, but I
>just wanted to know if anyone else has the same problem.


Fair enough.  Looks like no one has or if they have, they're not talking
about it. ;-)  I tend to agree that this pretty much a non-issue given 
that:

  (1) It apparently works in a cross-compile environment.
  (2) The subsequently packaged source builds fine.

>Please accept my apologies, and I will try and read the mailling list
>some more, maybe even make a cygwin-gcc faq if there is none yet.

I wasn't really offended.  Just a bit annoyed by the implications and the
tone.  But you've acknowledged this as an issue so I don't see a problem
going forward.  I certainly acknowledge that I used your post as a chance
to point out the larger issue of list etiquette which your post brought to 
light.  Sorry if that caused you any confusion.

There is no cygwin-gcc FAQ AFAIK.  There's just a general FAQ at 
http://cygwin.com/faq/ which covers general building issues.  If you 
have some Cygwin-gcc issues that qualify as FAQs (i.e. frequently asked),
feel free to post your entries to the list.  I'm sure David Starks-Browning
will pick up on them.

Larry

--------------------------------------------------------------------
mail2web - Check your email from the web at
http://mail2web.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/