Mailing-List: contact cygwin-developers-help AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Subscribe: <mailto:cygwin-developers-subscribe AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>
List-Archive: <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin-developers/>
List-Post: <mailto:cygwin-developers AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>
List-Help: <mailto:cygwin-developers-help AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/#faqs>
Sender: cygwin-developers-owner AT sources DOT redhat DOT com
Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin-developers AT sources DOT redhat DOT com
Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2001 15:00:43 -0500
From: Christopher Faylor <cgf AT redhat DOT com>
To: Earnie Boyd <cygwin-developers AT cygwin DOT com>
Cc: DJ Delorie <dj AT redhat DOT com>
Subject: Re: [Fwd: [MinGW-dvlpr] Lobbying for w32 patches to gcc, binutils]
Message-ID: <20010227150043.A13028@redhat.com>
Reply-To: cygwin-developers AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To: Earnie Boyd <cygwin-developers AT cygwin DOT com>,
	DJ Delorie <dj AT redhat DOT com>
References: <3A9BD859 DOT 1E2FB124 AT yahoo DOT com> <20010227123603 DOT A11566 AT redhat DOT com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.11i
In-Reply-To: <20010227123603.A11566@redhat.com>; from cgf@redhat.com on Tue, Feb 27, 2001 at 12:36:03PM -0500

On Tue, Feb 27, 2001 at 12:36:03PM -0500, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>I missed (or don't remember) either of these.
>
>Does anyone of the URLs for these patches?
>
>DJ can make binutils changes.  The GCC changes will probably require the
>approval of one of the maintainers unless they are local to cygwin-specific
>files, in which case, DJ or I can apply them.

Doh.  I actually had applied the stdcall patch to gcc 2.95.2-8.  The URL is:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2001-01/msg01751.html

I found the binutils patch, too.  It looks interesting but not
crucial:
http://sources.redhat.com/ml/binutils/2001-02/msg00232.html

The gcc poster says that he didn't know if the stdcall problem was fixed
in the current gcc trunk.  Does anyone know the status of this change?

cgf