Re: suggestion for cygwin gcc-3.2

[Christopher Faylor <cgf at redhat dot com>]

On Sun, Aug 18, 2002 at 12:25:03AM +0000, Gareth Pearce wrote:
>However cgf has spoken, hes the gcc maintainer here so its his call, he does 
>have a valid point (it is apparent that plenty of users builder their on gcc 
>from gcc sources not mingw branch and any such user would have to face the 
>breakage which we are all trying to avoid), but 'it was worth a try(tm)'.  

So far, all of the changes in the cygwin gcc branch have been things that I think
have a likelihood of being accepted into the mainstream.  Either that or there
are changes that require more work for the trunk but are ok for the branch.

The basic goal is to not have a cygwin branch.  Adding a feature to work
around the core behavior of gcc would insure that the cygwin branch
lives in perpetuity.  That goes against my goal for gcc.  The goal is to
have little or no work for cgf or Danny.  Keeping a cygwin-only change
would mean constantly keeping a branch up-to-date.  That's not something
that I relish doing.

However, a number of gcc people (like DJ for instance) report to me, so
I will ask a couple of them about this behavior and see if they can offer any
insight.

cgf

--
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/