Mailing-List: contact cygwin-apps-help AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com; run by ezmlm
list-help: <mailto:cygwin-apps-help AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com>
list-post: <mailto:cygwin-apps AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com>
Sender: cygwin-apps-owner AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com
Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin-apps AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com
From: Chris Faylor <cgf AT cygnus DOT com>
Date: Tue, 16 May 2000 18:01:48 -0400
To: cygwin-apps AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com
Cc: Mumit Khan <khan AT xraylith DOT wisc DOT EDU>
Subject: Re: [general] some ideas & request for comments (LONG)
Message-ID: <20000516180148.D15344@cygnus.com>
Mail-Followup-To: cgf AT cygnus DOT com, cygwin-apps AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com,
	Mumit Khan <khan AT xraylith DOT wisc DOT EDU>
References: <3920CB0D DOT C5971C34 AT ece DOT gatech DOT edu> <3921BABA DOT 31C7D040 AT ece DOT gatech DOT edu>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.1.12i
In-Reply-To: <3921BABA.31C7D040@ece.gatech.edu>; from cwilson@ece.gatech.edu on Tue, May 16, 2000 at 05:16:42PM -0400

On Tue, May 16, 2000 at 05:16:42PM -0400, Charles Wilson wrote:
>> 
>> Assuming binutils/gcc accept my patches (or at least the maintainers of
>> the cygwin ports of those packages), then I vote for option (d).
>> 
>
>It seems that the binutils portion of my desired patches were accepted
>into the main binutils tree. However, this may or may not affect the
>version distributed with cygwin.
>
>Now I'll try to get the [even more minor] patches to gcc accepted. :-)

The only problem is that the current version of binutils + bfd is in a
pretty uncertain state as far as PE for windows is concerned.  I don't
think it is close to being stable yet.

We're using a known stable version of the tools that Mumit provided.

Maybe he'll want to incorporate your changes into his stuff or allow you
to provide a new version of binutils + gcc for latest.

cgf