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 12:43:47 -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 Max Bowsher wrote: >Brian Ford wrote: > >> I thought I had a legitimate concern and question, not one that >> deserved "just" a sarcastic response. > >Yes, it was sarcastic, but don't take it personally. Chris is *busy* and >this is quite a minor issue. > We are all *busy*. Well, ABI breakage is not normally considered a minor issue. I know from following the list that I am just supposed to accept Chris this way. But honestly, I'd rather receive no reply than one with just sarcasim. One with sarcasim and real content would be fine. It takes nearly the same amount of time to do both. >> It would be easy to accendentally release things for Cygwin that are >> ABI incompatible with Cygwin's gcc. > > structs containing doubles aren't a hugely common feature. Besides, I > think Chris knows what he is doing. > Many libraries might be affected, especially ones that deal with images, etc. BTW, this may not be the only issue, it is just the only one I have bumped into so far. I wish I could feel comfortable that it is the only one, but with responses like this, I don't feel warm and fuzzy about anything Cygwin. >> 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. > >Great! Go on then! ;-) > I was hoping for an explanation of what the road block was so I wouldn't waist time just getting that far. Cygwin's gcc has an extensive number of patches and is pre 3.2. There must be a reason for this. Maybe it is just volunteer time, but somehow I doubt it. >> 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? > >Redhat != Cygwin. > Sure, but Cygwin is a Redhat product that is sold to make them money. Depending how our porting effort goes, we may be a customer. -- 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/