On 2/22/2013 00:59, Corinna Vinschen wrote: > On Feb 21 11:31, Chris Sutcliffe wrote: >> On 21 February 2013 10:38, NightStrike wrote: >>> On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 3:42 AM, Corinna Vinschen wrote: >>>> On Feb 21 21:33, JonY wrote: >>>>> On 2/21/2013 20:40, NightStrike wrote: >>>>>>> I've started looking at the patches, they definitely aren't trivial. >>>>>>> I'll probably be releasing it as experimental. >>>>>> >>>>>> There are local cygwin patches to gcc? >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Yes, about 100KB of it. I confess I don't know what most of is for, my >>>>> understanding of the gcc internals are limited. >>>> >>>> I assume some (or all) of them are already upstream, but they were not >>>> backported into the 4.5.x branch. It might be a good idea to start out >>>> with a clean upstream build and then look into the patches if they still >>>> make some sense. >>> >>> Are they in 4.6? If so, why not just start fresh and clean with a 4.6 >>> 'chain that needs zero patching? >> >> I believe Corinna means going to later version of GCC, preferably >> straight to 4.7 would be great. > > Exactly. The question is then, what patches from the 4.5.3 gcc were > not applied upstream and still make sense today. >
I have not looked at all the patches closely, but some of them were not merged in gcc-4.7.2, at least the peflags patch did not. Who is the upstream GCC maintainer for Cygwin anyway?
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
