Mailing-List: contact cygwin-apps-help AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com; run by ezmlm Sender: cygwin-apps-owner AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin-apps AT sources DOT redhat DOT com Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2001 21:09:48 -0400 From: Christopher Faylor To: cygwin-apps AT cygwin DOT com Subject: Re: Fwd: Re: [Refresh]: patch for C++ parser bug with function attributes Message-ID: <20010921210948.A7077@redhat.com> Reply-To: cygwin-apps AT cygwin DOT com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin-apps AT cygwin DOT com References: <20010921122014 DOT C31562 AT redhat DOT com> <20010922001229 DOT 66015 DOT qmail AT web14508 DOT mail DOT yahoo DOT com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20010922001229.66015.qmail@web14508.mail.yahoo.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.21i On Sat, Sep 22, 2001 at 10:12:29AM +1000, Danny Smith wrote: > --- Christopher Faylor wrote: > On Fri, Sep 21, 2001 >>>I will start on this. Any interest in backport to 3.0.1, or should I >>>just target 3.1? >>[snip] >>It would be nice to have a fully operational 3.x version of gcc for >>windows, though. >[snip] >"It would be nice" doesn't belong on this list, does it. In this context, sure. This isn't a musing, it's an answer to a question. Anyway, I agree that it makes sense to just focus on the trunk. In cygwin-land we can always release a "stable 3.1 snapshot" or something. I don't think we can live with problems that you outlined in 3.0.x and it doesn't seem like it is really worth your time to backport Joseph's attribute changes. Btw, I sent some internal email asking people to review some gcc/windows changes but I never followed up on it. I have a sinking feeling that it was just ignored. cgf