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: Fri, 2 Mar 2001 23:09:06 -0500
From: Christopher Faylor <cgf AT redhat DOT com>
To: cygwin-developers AT cygwin DOT com
Subject: Re: [Fwd: [MinGW-dvlpr] Lobbying for w32 patches to gcc, binutils]
Message-ID: <20010302230906.A18866@redhat.com>
Reply-To: cygwin-developers AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin-developers AT cygwin DOT com
References: <3A9BD859 DOT 1E2FB124 AT yahoo DOT com> <20010227123603 DOT A11566 AT redhat DOT com> <20010227150043 DOT A13028 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: <20010227150043.A13028@redhat.com>; from cgf@redhat.com on Tue, Feb 27, 2001 at 03:00:43PM -0500

On Tue, Feb 27, 2001 at 03:00:43PM -0500, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>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?

[hang head in shame]

We're talking about this in the wrong mailing list...

Maybe I'm being too anal about these things.  Dunno...

cgf