X-Authentication-Warning: delorie.com: mail set sender to djgpp-bounces using -f
From: Rugxulo <rugxulo AT gmail DOT com>
Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Subject: Re: GCC 2.6.3 and Cygnus' -mfpflaw patch
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 2009 12:55:35 -0800 (PST)
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Lines: 20
Message-ID: <af4eed6f-cb65-43ab-be04-842e46f3b7e2@21g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>
References: <5e20634c-445c-4b94-8083-aaf32ad4c2ba AT 26g2000yqo DOT googlegroups DOT com> 
	<96d9f9dc-6071-4823-bf35-ba87e319f2c0 AT j5g2000yqm DOT googlegroups DOT com> 
	<200912311901 DOT nBVJ1bGS010921 AT delorie DOT com> <89ac250a-b6d0-4fe5-96b2-a9effe1f9739 AT 34g2000yqp DOT googlegroups DOT com> 
	<200912312029 DOT nBVKTmiA012865 AT delorie DOT com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 65.13.115.246
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1262292935 29270 127.0.0.1 (31 Dec 2009 20:55:35 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse AT google DOT com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 31 Dec 2009 20:55:35 +0000 (UTC)
Complaints-To: groups-abuse AT google DOT com
Injection-Info: 21g2000yqj.googlegroups.com; posting-host=65.13.115.246; 
	posting-account=p5rsXQoAAAB8KPnVlgg9E_vlm2dvVhfO
User-Agent: G2/1.0
X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.0; en-US) 
	AppleWebKit/532.0 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/3.0.195.38 Safari/532.0,gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe)
Bytes: 2286
To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
DJ-Gateway: from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Reply-To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com

Hi,

On Dec 31, 2:29=A0pm, DJ Delorie <d DOT  DOT  DOT  AT delorie DOT com> wrote:
>
> > Which list? Aren't there several? You really think they wouldn't
> > flame me to death for using (gasp) DOS *and* old GCCs *and* old
> > hardware?? =A0If you know where I should go, please point me in that
> > direction! =A0:-)
>
> I think asking the gcc developers about a patch they developed long
> ago is a suitable topic for the gcc developers list (g DOT  DOT  DOT  AT gcc DOT gnu DOT org).
> It doesn't matter what OS you use.

Except that the patch itself was written by Cygnus peeps (pre-Red
Hat), hence was unofficial and never (AFAICT) incorporated into GCC
proper.

I'm thinking "gcc-patches" is a better place, but ... the only thing
worse than being flamed is being ignored into oblivion. (Oh well,
gotta try anyways ....)    :-/