X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Date: Sat, 18 Mar 2006 02:10:58 -0500 From: Christopher Faylor To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Subject: Re: GCC 4.x+ Message-ID: <20060318071058.GA27498@trixie.casa.cgf.cx> Reply-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com References: <4418AB38 DOT B7D87B36 AT dessent DOT net> <441B8AB3 DOT 9080308 AT cwilson DOT fastmail DOT fm> <441BAEF9 DOT 8090404 AT myrealbox DOT com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <441BAEF9.8090404@myrealbox.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.11 Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: 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 On Fri, Mar 17, 2006 at 10:55:53PM -0800, Tim Prince wrote: >I've heard of some reluctance among gcc developers to continue support >for cygwin. There seems to be a lack of interest in problem solving, or >in overcoming the binutils bottleneck in the way of a 64-bit native >cygwin. Huh? Could you point me at a developer who is expressing reluctance? I know most of them and hang out on the gcc irc channel and no one has said anything to me. 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/