Brian Dessent wrote: > Yes, this is why having an unversioned but shared libgcc in the distro > is such a poison. With the current state of gcc4 it's impossible to win > as maintainer of a C++ library: if you use the default options you get > static libgcc which means your library can't throw or catch exceptions > from other modules. If you use -shared-libgcc you get a dependence on > an unversioned shared lib which makes the output unsuitable to be > released to the public in the distro because it will only cause > headaches later. So I consider this gcc4 package to be in a preview > state, but it its output should not be considered suitable for packaging > yet.
Err...but that's a good description of cygwin-1.7, as well. Nobody (as far as I am aware) is suggesting that a test/preview gcc-4.3 package should be used as a "regular" compiler for cygwin-1.5. The question is, do we take a flyer on gcc-4.3 in the cygwin-1.7 sandbox, hoping to get /all/ the kinks worked out -- in both gcc-4.3 and in cygwin-1.7 -- by the time cygwin-1.7 goes "gold". -- Chuck
