DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=sourceware.org; h=list-id
	:list-unsubscribe:list-subscribe:list-archive:list-post
	:list-help:sender:message-id:date:from:mime-version:to:subject
	:references:in-reply-to:content-type; q=dns; s=default; b=GOrJEw
	G7LsaGfZPwJXiPQghrOJBVi8VshNSFj/1HcVkyNH/cmYb6swoX//9Qil0kuj/Du5
	xekCGslU2Cm7ok6Ddk4yw2wVU/b837bhtZvYFCVHsxNhda5zhKGjX6sADDeJhED2
	ONbvrWUMDaH13jc1i9SgLBLvXNxodh8iDSOxI=
Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
Sender: cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Message-ID: <56EA86C2.9080600@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2016 18:28:18 +0800
From: JonY <10walls AT gmail DOT com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:25.4) Gecko/20150524 FossaMail/25.1.5
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Subject: Re: mingw64-*-{headers,runtime,winpthreads}-4.0.5-1(x86/x86_64)
References: <announce DOT 56DEA4BE DOT 30005 AT gmail DOT com> <BAY169-W74EC22425C0B369EA3DC5AA7B30 AT phx DOT gbl> <loom DOT 20160317T090346-49 AT post DOT gmane DOT org>
In-Reply-To: <loom.20160317T090346-49@post.gmane.org>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="m0F7dVuKQAxps3TfcGg411x7eqvon5rbf"

--m0F7dVuKQAxps3TfcGg411x7eqvon5rbf
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On 3/17/2016 16:07, Tony Kelman wrote:
> Tony Kelman <tony <at> kelman.net> writes:
>=20
>>
>>> I have just updated the mingw-w64 headers, runtime, and winpthreads to
>>> 4.0.5-1.
>>>
>>> mingw64-*-headers-4.0.5-1
>>> mingw64-*-runtime-4.0.5-1
>>> mingw64-*-winpthreads-4.0.5-1
>>
>> Question, since I just had issues building some of LLVM's unit tests and
>> tracked the root cause back to here - is it intentional that x86_64-head=
ers
>> gets built with --enable-secure-api but i686-headers doesn't?
>=20
> Week later, hopefully socially acceptable ping. Can I request that
> mingw64-i686-headers get rebuilt with --enable-secure-api at the next
> update? Is there an especially good reason not to have it enabled by
> default?
>=20

Sorry, I didn't notice your email. No, its an oversight, a new v4.x
update will be coming soon, it should have this fixed.


--m0F7dVuKQAxps3TfcGg411x7eqvon5rbf
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc"

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
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=BRDk
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--m0F7dVuKQAxps3TfcGg411x7eqvon5rbf--