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=jqHDQL
	NLh6XdB2n2Ly8GaT2LIdoXpc5JRyWab8XZOlieQyKsjHOKjgxRvaUOEx3AFIWbKY
	poIn2fqVLAtIvzNrsodv7lYB7iLoEKqnupLYCph+KiMQAtmtRMx6XSv3/gRIgecP
	8cJItmnrE0KJabCaTEfrCYBg2micC6l7iCQ/E=
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: <56EFF24B.9010807@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2016 21:08:27 +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: [ANNOUNCEMENT] Updated: mingw64-*-gcc-5.3.0-1 (x86/x86_64)(Test)
References: <announce DOT 56EFD4D8 DOT 9030301 AT gmail DOT com> <loom DOT 20160321T132718-965 AT post DOT gmane DOT org>
In-Reply-To: <loom.20160321T132718-965@post.gmane.org>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="IX4tuoHs7DOGFxUavP0AM8gjKWt56O942"

--IX4tuoHs7DOGFxUavP0AM8gjKWt56O942
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On 3/21/2016 20:31, Tony Kelman wrote:
> JonY <10walls <at> gmail.com> writes:
>=20
>> I have just updated the mingw-w64 cross compilers Cygwin 32bit and
>> 64bit to mingw64-*-gcc-5.3.0-1. This is a test version, all the caveats
>> for gcc-5.3.0 apply.
>=20
> Do you have your cygport packaging in public version control somewhere?
> Otherwise I'll have to reboot over into windows to look at any patches
> you may have. Without the patch from the tail end of
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D66655 , mingw-w64 gcc 5.x
> will miscompile llvm. This should be fixed when gcc 6 comes out, but
> that may of course break other things.
>=20

If it is https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs/gcc?view=3Drevision&revision=3D232828,
no I don't have any patch like that, I guess -2 is coming sometime in
the future.


--IX4tuoHs7DOGFxUavP0AM8gjKWt56O942
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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=v4O5
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--IX4tuoHs7DOGFxUavP0AM8gjKWt56O942--