X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org X-ORBL: [69.110.162.137] Message-ID: <43E2CABA.4010504@myrealbox.com> Date: Thu, 02 Feb 2006 19:15:06 -0800 From: Tim Prince Reply-To: tprince AT computer DOT org User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.7.12) Gecko/20050921 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: djh CC: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Subject: Re: GCC compiler References: <43E2BB27 DOT 7050407 AT it DOT to-be DOT co DOT jp> In-Reply-To: <43E2BB27.7050407@it.to-be.co.jp> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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 djh wrote: > > My current version of gcc that setup.exe downloaded for me is: > > gcc (GCC) 3.4.4 (cygming special) (gdc 0.12, using dmd 0.125) > > The other day I downloaded gcc 4.0.2 > filename: gcc-4.0.2.tar.bz2 > > did a configure, make, and makeinstall > > and the build was successfull. I compiled a program with it and it > seems to work. > My question is, am I fooling myself? > Was there a lot of tweaking involved in getting the setup.exe downloaded > version of gcc to work with cygwin? You could run make -k check and compare your results with those posted by others at gcc-testsuite. This would show how well the standard tested functions of gcc itself are working. If you don't care to use additional features of the cygming special, such as -mno-cygwin, you may be set up to do what matters to you. -- 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/