Hello Sam,
> So, are we getting gcc 3.4?
3.3.3 is out now, including many fixes from 3.3.4 so actually it is a
3.3.4 release.
3.4.x is in my queue, but it may last some weeks until I have all
together to release a candidate.
Gerrit
--
=^..^=
--
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com
So, are we getting gcc 3.4?
thanks!
--
Sam Steingold (http://www.podval.org/~sds) running w2k
<http://www.camera.org> <http://www.iris.org.il> <http://www.memri.org/>
<http://www.mideasttruth.com/> <http://www.honestreporting.com>
If you're constantly being mist
Christopher Faylor wrote:
> Still talking about this, eh? Somehow I thought it had died down
> before I went on my business trip.
>
I am truely sorry Chris. This email was not directed to you at all.
Indeed, in the end, I was more than satisfied with your response.
This was simply a response t
--- Danny Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Brian Ford wrote:
>
> > Vanilla gcc 3.2.x is NOT ABI compatible with Cygwin's pre 3.2 gcc, fact.
> > I wanted to know why this was allowed to persist given the simple patch
> > required to fix it, question. I had seen Mr. Faylor make statements
> > be
On Sun, Mar 16, 2003 at 09:01:23PM -0500, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>On Mon, Mar 17, 2003 at 12:59:21PM +1100, Danny Smith wrote:
>>Brian Ford wrote:
>>
>>> Vanilla gcc 3.2.x is NOT ABI compatible with Cygwin's pre 3.2 gcc, fact.
>>> I wanted to know why this was allowed to persist given the simple
On Mon, Mar 17, 2003 at 12:59:21PM +1100, Danny Smith wrote:
>Brian Ford wrote:
>
>> Vanilla gcc 3.2.x is NOT ABI compatible with Cygwin's pre 3.2 gcc, fact.
>> I wanted to know why this was allowed to persist given the simple patch
>> required to fix it, question. I had seen Mr. Faylor make state
Brian Ford wrote:
> Vanilla gcc 3.2.x is NOT ABI compatible with Cygwin's pre 3.2 gcc, fact.
> I wanted to know why this was allowed to persist given the simple patch
> required to fix it, question. I had seen Mr. Faylor make statements
> before to the effect of: doubles in structures are not tha
Still talking about this, eh? Somehow I thought it had died down
before I went on my business trip.
On Fri, Mar 14, 2003 at 11:57:02AM -0600, Brian Ford wrote:
>Vanilla gcc 3.2.x is NOT ABI compatible with Cygwin's pre 3.2 gcc,
>fact. I wanted to know why this was allowed to persist given the
>s
On Thu, 13 Mar 2003, Ronald Landheer-Cieslak wrote:
> On Wed, 12 Mar 2003, Brian Ford wrote:
>
> > Max Bowsher wrote:
> > >Brian Ford wrote:
> > >> I thought I had a legitimate concern and question, not one that
> > >> deserved "just" a sarcastic response.
> > >Yes, it was sarcastic, but don't tak
> >If you want pickled eggs with your free beer, you may have to wait. Myself,
I
> >can't understand why the barman can't put the foam on the bottom
>
> But I don't like beer! What other beverages do you provide for free?
This reminds me of the Monty Python "Bookshop" sketch with a customer
dema
On Wed, 12 Mar 2003, Brian Ford wrote:
> Max Bowsher wrote:
> >Brian Ford wrote:
> >> I thought I had a legitimate concern and question, not one that
> >> deserved "just" a sarcastic response.
> >Yes, it was sarcastic, but don't take it personally. Chris is *busy* and
> >this is quite a minor issu
On Thu, Mar 13, 2003 at 08:33:27AM +1100, Danny Smith wrote:
>Brian Ford wrote:
>>
>> Gee. I hope Cygwin, and anything else you compile with that compiler
>> for Cygwin, does not have structures containing doubles. Without
>> MASK_ALIGN_DOUBLE in TARGET_SUBTARGET_DEFAULT of gcc/config/i386/cygwi
Brian Ford wrote:
>
> Gee. I hope Cygwin, and anything else you compile with that compiler
> for Cygwin, does not have structures containing doubles. Without
> MASK_ALIGN_DOUBLE in TARGET_SUBTARGET_DEFAULT of gcc/config/i386/cygwin.h,
> the standard Cygwin compiler and vanilla gcc are ABI incomp
Brian Ford wrote:
>Cygwin's gcc has an extensive number of patches and is pre 3.2. There
>must be a reason for this. Maybe it is just volunteer time, but somehow
>I doubt it.
Christopher Faylor wrote:
>There is no hidden agenda here.
>
Ok. But is it "kosher" for me to submit and revise patche
On Wed, Mar 12, 2003 at 12:43:47PM -0600, Brian Ford wrote:
>Cygwin's gcc has an extensive number of patches and is pre 3.2. There
>must be a reason for this. Maybe it is just volunteer time, but somehow I
>doubt it.
There is no hidden agenda here.
If you want to improve the trunk version of gc
On Wed, Mar 12, 2003 at 12:53:50PM -0600, Brian Ford wrote:
>Christopher Faylor wrote:
>>For the record, Danny Smith is working on getting the cygwin patches
>>into gcc. But, guess what? He doesn't get paid to do this any more
>>than I do.
>
>None of us do. That is well understood.
That was als
Max Bowsher wrote:
>Yes, it was sarcastic,
Christopher Faylor wrote:
>As was, "Gee. I hope Cygwin, and anything else you compile with that
>compiler for Cygwin, does not have structures containing doubles."
Sorry, I should have phrased this differently. It was not really intended
to be sarcas
Max Bowsher wrote:
>Brian Ford wrote:
>
>> I thought I had a legitimate concern and question, not one that
>> deserved "just" a sarcastic response.
>
>Yes, it was sarcastic, but don't take it personally. Chris is *busy* and
>this is quite a minor issue.
>
We are all *busy*. Well, ABI breakage is n
On Wed, Mar 12, 2003 at 06:19:58PM -, Max Bowsher wrote:
>Brian Ford wrote:
>> I thought I had a legitimate concern and question, not one that
>> deserved "just" a sarcastic response.
>
>Yes, it was sarcastic,
As was, "Gee. I hope Cygwin, and anything else you compile with that
compiler for C
Brian Ford wrote:
> I thought I had a legitimate concern and question, not one that
> deserved "just" a sarcastic response.
Yes, it was sarcastic, but don't take it personally. Chris is *busy* and
this is quite a minor issue.
> It would be easy to accendentally release things for Cygwin that are
At 08:39 2003-03-12, Christopher Faylor wrote:
On Wed, Mar 12, 2003 at 10:13:35AM -0600, Brian Ford wrote:
>On Wed, Mar 12, 2003 at 10:54:13PM -0500, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>
>>FWIW, I build cygwin itself with an unpatched version of gcc several
>>times a day.
>>
>
>Gee. I hope Cygwin, and anyt
I thought I had a legitimate concern and question, not one that deserved
"just" a sarcastic response.
It would be easy to accendentally release things for Cygwin that are ABI
incompatible with Cygwin's gcc.
Why do we persist this way? I would be happy to do the necessary leg work
to make vanilla
On Wed, Mar 12, 2003 at 10:13:35AM -0600, Brian Ford wrote:
>On Wed, Mar 12, 2003 at 10:54:13PM -0500, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>
>>FWIW, I build cygwin itself with an unpatched version of gcc several
>>times a day.
>>
>
>Gee. I hope Cygwin, and anything else you compile with that compiler for
>C
On Wed, Mar 12, 2003 at 10:54:13PM -0500, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>FWIW, I build cygwin itself with an unpatched version of gcc several
>times a day.
>
Gee. I hope Cygwin, and anything else you compile with that compiler for
Cygwin, does not have structures containing doubles. Without
MASK_AL
On Wed, Mar 12, 2003 at 04:33:04PM +0100, Ronald Landheer-Cieslak wrote:
>On Wed, 12 Mar 2003, Tim Prince wrote:
>> On Wednesday 12 March 2003 03:20, Ronald Landheer-Cieslak wrote:
>> > BTW: the FSF-provided gcc doesn't work OOTB on Cygwin, IIRC: there are a
>> > couple of patches to apply and a bi
On Wed, Mar 12, 2003 at 08:43:55PM +1100, Eugene Rosenzweig wrote:
>The latest message in gcc-announce
>http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-announce/2003/msg1.html says that
>i?86-*-win32 target will be deprecated as from gcc 3.4 (no date set).
If you look in the gcc list where this was
cial" gcc on Cygwin as is :)
> >
> > On Wed, 12 Mar 2003, Eugene Rosenzweig wrote:
> > > The latest message in gcc-announce
> > > http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-announce/2003/msg1.html says that
> > > i?86-*-win32 target will be deprecated as from gcc 3.4 (n
03, Eugene Rosenzweig wrote:
> > The latest message in gcc-announce
> > http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-announce/2003/msg1.html says that
> > i?86-*-win32 target will be deprecated as from gcc 3.4 (no date set). The
> > only win32 target on the list of supported platforms
> > http
t say that there is no "official" gcc on Cygwin as is :)
On Wed, 12 Mar 2003, Eugene Rosenzweig wrote:
> The latest message in gcc-announce
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-announce/2003/msg1.html says that i?86-*-win32
> target will be deprecated as from gcc 3.4 (no date set). T
The latest message in gcc-announce
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-announce/2003/msg1.html says that i?86-*-win32
target will be deprecated as from gcc 3.4 (no date set). The only win32
target on the list of supported platforms
http://gcc.gnu.org/install/specific.html is the cygwin one. Will there
30 matches
Mail list logo
