Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Subscribe: <mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Archive: <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post: <mailto:cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help: <mailto:cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/#faqs>
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, 26 Apr 2003 11:19:30 -0400
From: Christopher Faylor <cgf-rcm AT cygwin DOT com>
To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Subject: Re: gcc 3.2-3 installation (gold star alert)
Message-ID: <20030426151930.GB19888@redhat.com>
Reply-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
References: <b8e17u$lhe$1 AT main DOT gmane DOT org> <Pine DOT GSO DOT 4 DOT 44 DOT 0304261000070 DOT 10996-100000 AT slinky DOT cs DOT nyu DOT edu> <b8e4o2$vst$1 AT main DOT gmane DOT org> <BAY2-DAV176Ssuot0OU00000989 AT hotmail DOT com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <BAY2-DAV176Ssuot0OU00000989@hotmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i

On Sun, Apr 27, 2003 at 01:12:08AM +1000, Gareth Pearce wrote:
>> > > Is there a stable (not prerelease) version in CygWin?
>> >
>> > Alex,
>> >
>> > Don't let the version string fool you -- this gcc version has been used
>by
>> > thousands of people since last November.  I'd say it's pretty stable.
>:-)
>> > Igor
>> > --
>> [snip]
>>
>> OK.
>> It is good news.
>>
>> Nevertheless, why is gcc-3.2 a prerelease version?
>'prerelease' may infact be a misnomer in this situation.  I believe
>that it is infact a 'post release' version.  It is pre-release in the
>sense that it was produced before the next release.  But that release
>was 3.2.1.  Due to the fact that cygwin is a somewhat unusal situation
>with respect to gcc, it has its own branch in the gcc cvs.  Therefore
>it is not subject to the same release system that the main gcc compiler
>is.  However if I remember correctly, this release was made 'just
>after' the mainline released 3.2 - it is essentially 'the released 3.2'
>with 'cygwin modifications'.  The version is just a label.  It provides
>identification information.
>>When will 'a not-prerelease version of gcc-3.2' be in CygWin?
>your reading more into the word prerelease then you should, it seems.
>prerelease in the gcc version label sense does not mean unstable, and
>lacking in testing.  prerelease just means 'not official gcc release'.
>Chris (reluctant gcc maintainer) could of changed that to 'cygwin
>release' if he felt so inclined, but he did not.
>
>If you want a version of gcc 3.2 which does Not have (prerelease) in
>it, you can download the official gcc release (if you can still find
>3.2) and compile it yourself (noting that it will not have explicit
>cygwin gcc aditions such as -mno-cygwin).  Or you could binary edit the
>appropriate files and change your currently installed version.  Neither
>would actually benifit you in the slightest, I do suspect.

Can we get a gold star for Gareth, here?  He answered this question
perfectly.

It's really astonishingly nice to see people reasoning things through
like this.

cgf

--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports:       http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/