On Mon, Mar 15, 2004 at 07:32:56AM -0000, Ben Taylor wrote: >I tried building 3.3.3 using 3.3.1, which didn't work when doing 'make >bootstrap'. But then I did a successful 'make bootstrap' of 3.3.2 >using 3.3.1. The bootstrapped 3.3.2 works fine, and claims to have >been compiled by itself not 3.3.1. Even -mno-cygwin works fine on it. >So I'm now happy, in that I've used my 'on-a-plate' compiler to compile >myself a better one. But I'm greedy and curious, I want more. So now >I've included in the path environment variable the path to this before >the cygwin path, and I'm now trying to make bootstrap 3.3.3 using >3.3.2. Do you think it should work? When I type 'man patch' it says >'no manual entry for patch', do I have to install this extra? > >And what of this Chris geezer, does he have a known email address? Can >he be contacted to be asked questions such as this?
You must not be paying attention. I (and others) have been responding to this thread on the mailing list. To answer your question: I have no desire to enter into personal dialogs about cygwin. That's why we have a cygwin mailing list. Also, just in case it isn't clear, we will eventually be releasing gcc 3.3.3 (and even 3.4), too, so this exercise is pretty much academic. -- Christopher Faylor Cygwin Project Leader Red Hat, Inc. -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
