Re: fastcall for gcc

On Sun, Apr 07, 2002 at 09:12:46AM +1000, Robert Collins wrote: >Anyway, should I take this as "No, cygwin gcc doesn't need FASTCALL"? You can take it as a "I'm not really interested in making another 2.95 release". I would also rather not maintain local tweaks if I can help it. cgf -- Unsubsc

RE: fastcall for gcc

> -Original Message- > From: Christopher Faylor [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Sunday, April 07, 2002 9:12 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: fastcall for gcc > > > On Sun, Apr 07, 2002 at 09:08:28AM +1000, Robert Collins wrote: > >

Re: fastcall for gcc

On Sun, Apr 07, 2002 at 09:08:28AM +1000, Robert Collins wrote: > > >> -Original Message- >> From: Christopher Faylor [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] >> Sent: Sunday, April 07, 2002 9:07 AM >> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> Subject: Re: fastcall for gcc >>

RE: fastcall for gcc

> -Original Message- > From: Christopher Faylor [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Sunday, April 07, 2002 9:07 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: fastcall for gcc > > > On Sun, Apr 07, 2002 at 09:01:18AM +1000, Robert Collins wrote: > >would you

Re: fastcall for gcc

On Sun, Apr 07, 2002 at 09:01:18AM +1000, Robert Collins wrote: >would you accept a patch to give cygwin gcc FASTCALL support? Um, talk to Danny about this. I think he's already got something along these lines. cgf -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Bug reportin

fastcall for gcc

Chris, would you accept a patch to give cygwin gcc FASTCALL support? Rob -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Bug reporting: http://cygwin.com/bugs.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/