X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com From: Steven Brown Subject: Re: Fixing the state of C++ in Cygwin Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2006 19:37:10 -0700 Lines: 19 Message-ID: References: <44505AAA DOT 2050302 AT yahoo DOT com> <44513E4B DOT B82C0AFB AT dessent DOT net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit User-Agent: Mail/News 1.5 (X11/20060228) In-Reply-To: <44513E4B.B82C0AFB@dessent.net> X-IsSubscribed: yes 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 Brian Dessent wrote: > I just want to remind everyone that using --enable-fully-dynamic-string > will incur a somewhat significant performance hit, and it's the reason > this hasn't been set as the default for Cygwin. In the PR there is a > patch that is reported to fix the problem without the full performance > hit, so that would be preferable to use rather than the 20-ton hammer. The fuzzy semi-conclusion of the bug report scared me off - figured it'd be a safer choice to go with 'known to work but slower' that wouldn't add a draft patch to the diffs while they finish sorting it out in gcc land. Either way, I'd just like to see this bug fixed. :) 'slow' or 'draft', anything is better than the current: 'crash'. I'm not sure who the current gcc maintainer of Cygwin is - I think Gerrit? If it's a time issue for him, I could build the packages and fix the sh/diff this weekend given a call on which path to take - draft patch or --enable-fully-dynamic-string. I just don't want it to fall through the cracks again. -- 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/