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 > ABI incompatible with Cygwin's gcc. structs containing doubles aren't a hugely common feature. Besides, I think Chris knows what he is doing. > Why do we persist this way? I would be happy to do the necessary leg > work to make vanilla gcc the same as Cygwin gcc. Great! Go on then! ;-) > With Redhat's influence on the free software world, I would think, > mistakenly, I guess, that Cygwin local patches would be short-lived, > migrating relatively quickly back to the official sources. What is > wrong with this assumption? Redhat != Cygwin. Max. -- 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/
