X-Recipient: archive-cygwin AT delorie DOT com
X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.5 required=5.0 	tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_PASS
X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
Message-ID: <49C1E756.7000007@users.sourceforge.net>
Date: Thu, 19 Mar 2009 01:33:58 -0500
From: "Yaakov (Cygwin/X)" <yselkowitz AT users DOT sourceforge DOT net>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.21 (Windows/20090302)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Subject: Re: gcc4: cc
References: <49C0467A DOT 1080404 AT users DOT sourceforge DOT net> <49C07906 DOT 2060504 AT gmail DOT com> <49C1CA1E DOT 20509 AT users DOT sourceforge DOT net> <49C1CFE7 DOT 1030401 AT sbcglobal DOT net> <49C1E05A DOT 2060206 AT gmail DOT com>
In-Reply-To: <49C1E05A.2060206@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Id: <cygwin.cygwin.com>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Archive: <http://sourceware.org/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post: <mailto:cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help: <mailto:cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sourceware.org/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

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256

Dave Korn wrote:
>   Perhaps the nice thing to would be supply an auxiliary (optional) package
> full of alternative-name helper shell scripts like these.  (Apropos of
> nothing, I'll point out that SUS may demand cc, c89 and/or c99, but says
> nothing about cc-3, c89-3, c99-4, or any other such combination.... so it
> might be enough to just ship scripts and let them point to whatever the
> default selected by alternatives is?)

AFAIK there is no reason for a cc *script*, so I think cc should just be
part of the alternatives, pointing to whichever of gcc-{3,4}.  I agree
that there need not be a cc-{3,4}, and all of the above would also apply
for c++ and f77/f95.

As for c89/c99, +1 on the script idea; separate versions are definitely
not necessary.  Are there supposed to be similar names for the ISO C++
standards (c++98 and c++0x)?


Yaakov
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (Cygwin)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iEYEAREIAAYFAknB51YACgkQpiWmPGlmQSNlTgCeJlCATiegaP25pMjiGKhBBfbr
c8IAoJnQ+hZ34gbEUD8EYZ8DUuVlcXL8
=gXGf
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--
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/