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
Message-Id: <6.0.1.1.0.20040302193614.01eec5f0@imap.myrealbox.com>
X-Sender: tprince AT imap DOT myrealbox DOT com
Date: Tue, 02 Mar 2004 19:39:15 -0800
To: Erick Castillo <erick AT hitachissi DOT com>, cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
From: Tim Prince <tprince AT computer DOT org>
Subject: Re: gcc 2.95_
In-Reply-To: <loom.20040302T235423-410@post.gmane.org>
References: <loom DOT 20040302T214823-156 AT post DOT gmane DOT org> <c230nf$7lm$1 AT sea DOT gmane DOT org> <loom DOT 20040302T235423-410 AT post DOT gmane DOT org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
X-IsSubscribed: yes

At 02:58 PM 3/2/2004, Erick Castillo wrote:



>You're absolutely right, gcc version 3.3 does work fine. The problem I'm 
>having
>is specific to the software I am trying to compile. The application i have
>compiles with older versions of the compiler and this is why I'm looking for
>older ones. So one last question... did v2.96 meet the same fate as v2.95?
>

No, gcc-2.96 was a red hat release, not a gnu release.  I never saw it 
appear on cygwin, nor any OS other than those put out by Red Hat.  Some of 
the versions were mighty buggy.


Tim Prince 


--
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/