X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Message-ID: <43E85826.9070607@it.to-be.co.jp> Date: Tue, 07 Feb 2006 17:19:50 +0900 From: djh User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.7.11) Gecko/20050728 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: tprince AT computer DOT org CC: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Subject: Re: GCC compiler References: <43E2BB27 DOT 7050407 AT it DOT to-be DOT co DOT jp> <43E2CABA DOT 4010504 AT myrealbox DOT com> In-Reply-To: <43E2CABA.4010504@myrealbox.com> 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 Thanks for the informative and helpful response. Darel ----------------------------------- Tim Prince wrote: > 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/