Just a suggestion: Perhaps it might be wise to ship both the gcc versions (as separate packages in setup, not just different versions of the gcc package), and default to the 2.95.3, thereby allowing users who wish to use the current 3 branch to do so, while not breaking anything for the other users.
Stephano Mariani > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On > Behalf Of Tim Prince > Sent: 17 January 2002 04:30 > To: Laurence F. Wood > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: When will GCC 3 ship with Cygwin? > > Laurence F. Wood wrote: > > > GCC 3 has problems according to: > http://aros.ca.sandia.gov/~cljanss/mpqc/mpqc-html- > 2.0.1/compile.html#compile > > > > > That Sandia page deprecates only gcc-3.0 and 3.01, not the current > releases, and appears to have little to do with cygwin. Even the mpi > lam > pages would give you more current information about gcc versions for > mpi > on linux, if that's your concern. Many linux users have moved beyond > 2.95 already. Certainly, it's a big step from 2.95.x to 3.x.x for > people who care about details of the C++ libraries, but I don't see > any > problem for the mpi applications I'm dealing with on Windows or > linux in > moving to current releases when the system maintainers are ready. I > see > more incentive to move to gcc-3.1, but I won't argue that it's time > to > do so now. > > I don't see that the proposal to drop support for gcc versions using > coff is aimed directly at cygwin, nor do I see how it should affect > our > attitude about which gcc version to prefer. > > > -- > Tim Prince > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > -- > 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/ -- 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/
