On 3 November 2010 14:59, Larry Hall (Cygwin) wrote: > On 11/3/2010 10:10 AM, Lee Maschmeyer wrote: >> >> Hmm. Is that really the best approach unless absolutely necessary? "That >> doesn't work so do something else" has always struck me as a less than >> ideal >> approach to debugging. :-) Is it possible that caml could be repaired so >> it >> doesn't depend on GCC4? > > I'm not sure "repaired" is the right word for this
I don't think it is. Gcc-4 is Cygwin 1.7's system compiler, so there's nothing wrong with (parts of) the ocaml package depending on it. But I guess the ability to switch the default compiler back to gcc-3 should come with a health warning: it may break stuff. Time to get rid of the gcc alternatives setup perhaps, and require users to specify gcc-3 explicitly if they still want it? Andy -- Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/ Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
