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 X-Authentication-Warning: eos.vss.fsi.com: ford owned process doing -bs Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2003 11:56:35 -0600 (CST) From: Brian Ford X-X-Sender: ford AT eos To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Subject: Re: cygwin gcc 3.4 and cygwin Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII I thought I had a legitimate concern and question, not one that deserved "just" a sarcastic response. It would be easy to accendentally release things for Cygwin that are ABI incompatible with Cygwin's gcc. Why do we persist this way? I would be happy to do the necessary leg work to make vanilla gcc the same as Cygwin gcc. With Redhat's influence on the free software world, I would think, mistakenly, I guess, that Cygwin local patches would be short-lived, migrating relatively quickly back to the official sources. What is wrong with this assumption? Just trying to understand and help out, not cause problems or insult. Thanks. Christopher Faylor wrote: FWIW, I build cygwin itself with an unpatched version of gcc several times a day. Brian Ford wrote: Gee. I hope Cygwin, and anything else you compile with that compiler for Cygwin, does not have structures containing doubles. Without MASK_ALIGN_DOUBLE in TARGET_SUBTARGET_DEFAULT of gcc/config/i386/cygwin.h, the standard Cygwin compiler and vanilla gcc are ABI incompatible. Doesn't this seem bad? Christopher Faylor wrote: Oh, it seems horrific. Now I won't be able to sleep at night. Thanks a lot. -- Brian Ford Senior Realtime Software Engineer VITAL - Visual Simulation Systems FlightSafety International Phone: 314-551-8460 Fax: 314-551-8444 -- 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/