Mailing-List: contact cygwin-developers-help AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com; run by ezmlm
Sender: cygwin-developers-owner AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com
Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin-developers AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com
Message-Id: <199907200604.BAA25065@mercury.xraylith.wisc.edu>
To: Glenn Spell <glenn AT gs DOT fay DOT nc DOT us>
cc: cygwin-developers AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com, cygwin AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com
Subject: Re: _ctype_ not exported by cygwin1.dll ?? 
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 19 Jul 1999 14:03:22 EDT."
             <19990719140322 DOT A5601 AT ba DOT best DOT com> 
Date: Tue, 20 Jul 1999 01:04:02 -0500
From: Mumit Khan <khan AT xraylith DOT wisc DOT EDU>

Glenn Spell <glenn AT gs DOT fay DOT nc DOT us> writes:
> On 17 Jul 1999 at  8:01PM (-0500) Mumit Khan wrote:
> 
> > John Fortin <fortinj AT ibm DOT net> writes:
> > > 
> > > If I wanted to build gcc 2.95, which snapshot should I use,
> > 
> > Get the latest snapshot from ftp://egcs.cygnus.com/pub/egcs/snapshots/,
> > apply my patch (there is a "combined" patch file in the tarball in 
> > addition to all the individual patches), and just build.
> >   
> >   $ mkdir objdir
> >   $ cd objdir
> >   $ CONFIG_SHELL=bash <srcdir>/configure -v \
> 
> Is there any particular reason to use 'bash'?

I've never been comfortable with ash, and it's been known to screw up 
relative pathnames when using stock b20.1 (which is what I use). It's
just what I use, feel free to experiment using ash.

Regards,
Mumit