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: Thu, 13 Feb 2003 12:43:29 -0500 From: Christopher Faylor To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Subject: Re: cygwin gcc vs official gcc? Message-ID: <20030213174329.GB28536@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/1.5.1i On Wed, Feb 12, 2003 at 04:53:29PM -0600, Brian Ford wrote: >What is the state of/reason for Cygwin/Mingw specific mods to official >gcc sources? I assume these mods will eventually make it in to the >official tree, right? What is the typical migration path? > >I ask, because I am trying to do DWARF2 development work for Cygwin. > >I thought that I should start with current gcc (3.2.2) and binutils >(2.13.2.1) sources (or CVS). But, I just ran into a double alignment ABI >breakage with the official gcc sources. I have applied the proper patch >locally to fix it, but I wonder why it has not been officially submitted >yet? I also wonder how many other gotcha's there are? > >What should a Cygwin developer use as a base for binutils and gcc >development work? Since most of your work will probably require approval from people outside of cygwin/mingw, it's best to stick with the official branches. We can backpatch them into the cygwin/mingw branch as appropriate. 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/