Charles Wilson wrote: > I thought there were some patches to the cygwin gcc 3.4.x version that > had not yet been migrated to the official sources? I'd be glad to be > wrong, however.
There's the patch that fixes throwing exceptions across DLLs (or something like that.) I know it's been submitted by Danny but I think it withered and he wasn't interested in championing it. The thing is, 4.x is so vastly different than 3.x that I'm not sure if it's still even needed or not. > Also, wasn't there some issue with the std::string implementation that > was causing problems for both cygwin-special and mingw-special g++? Yes, this can be fixed (with a somewhat severe performance penalty) by configuring libstdc++ with --enable-fully-dynamic-string. There's a patch against 3.4 that fixes this in a less invasive way, but no equivalent for 4.x AFAIK. On this issue though even the current 3.4 gcc packages are broken, so it wouldn't be a regression per se. > Otherwise, if it's so simple, I don't understand why Gerrit hasn't > released gcc-4.x as a test version, nor [OT:] why Danny hasn't released > a gcc-4.0 candidate for mingw. Well, I know there still some rough edges with 4.x and cygwin/mingw, which might prevent the maintainers from deploying it just on the basis that a somewhat-broken compiler is worse than no compiler. The last time I tried a cygwin1.dll compiled with gcc 4.x it was nowhere close to being functional, presumably because the stricter enforcement of aliasing rules or more aggressive optimizations uncovered code problems. But the person that started the thread just wanted to try GCC on his own code, which sounded to me like the appropriate thing is just build it and find out, since it's trivial to keep a number of independant installed versions of gcc. Brian -- 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/
