Christopher Faylor wrote:
> Still talking about this, eh? Somehow I thought it had died down
> before I went on my business trip.
>
I am truely sorry Chris. This email was not directed to you at all.
Indeed, in the end, I was more than satisfied with your response.
This was simply a response t
--- Danny Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Brian Ford wrote:
>
> > Vanilla gcc 3.2.x is NOT ABI compatible with Cygwin's pre 3.2 gcc, fact.
> > I wanted to know why this was allowed to persist given the simple patch
> > required to fix it, question. I had seen Mr. Faylor make statements
> > be
On Sun, Mar 16, 2003 at 09:01:23PM -0500, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>On Mon, Mar 17, 2003 at 12:59:21PM +1100, Danny Smith wrote:
>>Brian Ford wrote:
>>
>>> Vanilla gcc 3.2.x is NOT ABI compatible with Cygwin's pre 3.2 gcc, fact.
>>> I wanted to know why this was allowed to persist given the simple
On Mon, Mar 17, 2003 at 12:59:21PM +1100, Danny Smith wrote:
>Brian Ford wrote:
>
>> Vanilla gcc 3.2.x is NOT ABI compatible with Cygwin's pre 3.2 gcc, fact.
>> I wanted to know why this was allowed to persist given the simple patch
>> required to fix it, question. I had seen Mr. Faylor make state
Brian Ford wrote:
> Vanilla gcc 3.2.x is NOT ABI compatible with Cygwin's pre 3.2 gcc, fact.
> I wanted to know why this was allowed to persist given the simple patch
> required to fix it, question. I had seen Mr. Faylor make statements
> before to the effect of: doubles in structures are not tha
Still talking about this, eh? Somehow I thought it had died down
before I went on my business trip.
On Fri, Mar 14, 2003 at 11:57:02AM -0600, Brian Ford wrote:
>Vanilla gcc 3.2.x is NOT ABI compatible with Cygwin's pre 3.2 gcc,
>fact. I wanted to know why this was allowed to persist given the
>s
On Thu, 13 Mar 2003, Ronald Landheer-Cieslak wrote:
> On Wed, 12 Mar 2003, Brian Ford wrote:
>
> > Max Bowsher wrote:
> > >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 tak
> >If you want pickled eggs with your free beer, you may have to wait. Myself,
I
> >can't understand why the barman can't put the foam on the bottom
>
> But I don't like beer! What other beverages do you provide for free?
This reminds me of the Monty Python "Bookshop" sketch with a customer
dema
On Wed, 12 Mar 2003, Brian Ford wrote:
> Max Bowsher wrote:
> >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 issu
On Thu, Mar 13, 2003 at 08:33:27AM +1100, Danny Smith wrote:
>Brian Ford wrote:
>>
>> Gee. I hope Cygwin, and anything else you compile with that compiler
>> for Cygwin, does not have structures containing doubles. Without
>> MASK_ALIGN_DOUBLE in TARGET_SUBTARGET_DEFAULT of gcc/config/i386/cygwi
Brian Ford wrote:
>
> Gee. I hope Cygwin, and anything else you compile with that compiler
> for Cygwin, does not have structures containing doubles. Without
> MASK_ALIGN_DOUBLE in TARGET_SUBTARGET_DEFAULT of gcc/config/i386/cygwin.h,
> the standard Cygwin compiler and vanilla gcc are ABI incomp
Brian Ford wrote:
>Cygwin's gcc has an extensive number of patches and is pre 3.2. There
>must be a reason for this. Maybe it is just volunteer time, but somehow
>I doubt it.
Christopher Faylor wrote:
>There is no hidden agenda here.
>
Ok. But is it "kosher" for me to submit and revise patche
On Wed, Mar 12, 2003 at 12:43:47PM -0600, Brian Ford wrote:
>Cygwin's gcc has an extensive number of patches and is pre 3.2. There
>must be a reason for this. Maybe it is just volunteer time, but somehow I
>doubt it.
There is no hidden agenda here.
If you want to improve the trunk version of gc
On Wed, Mar 12, 2003 at 12:53:50PM -0600, Brian Ford wrote:
>Christopher Faylor wrote:
>>For the record, Danny Smith is working on getting the cygwin patches
>>into gcc. But, guess what? He doesn't get paid to do this any more
>>than I do.
>
>None of us do. That is well understood.
That was als
Max Bowsher wrote:
>Yes, it was sarcastic,
Christopher Faylor wrote:
>As was, "Gee. I hope Cygwin, and anything else you compile with that
>compiler for Cygwin, does not have structures containing doubles."
Sorry, I should have phrased this differently. It was not really intended
to be sarcas
Max Bowsher wrote:
>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.
>
We are all *busy*. Well, ABI breakage is n
On Wed, Mar 12, 2003 at 06:19:58PM -, Max Bowsher wrote:
>Brian Ford wrote:
>> I thought I had a legitimate concern and question, not one that
>> deserved "just" a sarcastic response.
>
>Yes, it was sarcastic,
As was, "Gee. I hope Cygwin, and anything else you compile with that
compiler for C
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
At 08:39 2003-03-12, Christopher Faylor wrote:
On Wed, Mar 12, 2003 at 10:13:35AM -0600, Brian Ford wrote:
>On Wed, Mar 12, 2003 at 10:54:13PM -0500, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>
>>FWIW, I build cygwin itself with an unpatched version of gcc several
>>times a day.
>>
>
>Gee. I hope Cygwin, and anyt
I thought I had a legitimate concern and question, not one that deserved
"just" a sarcastic response.
It would be easy to accendentally release things for Cygwin that are ABI
incompatible with Cygwin's gcc.
Why do we persist this way? I would be happy to do the necessary leg work
to make vanilla
On Wed, Mar 12, 2003 at 10:13:35AM -0600, Brian Ford wrote:
>On Wed, Mar 12, 2003 at 10:54:13PM -0500, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>
>>FWIW, I build cygwin itself with an unpatched version of gcc several
>>times a day.
>>
>
>Gee. I hope Cygwin, and anything else you compile with that compiler for
>C
On Wed, Mar 12, 2003 at 10:54:13PM -0500, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>FWIW, I build cygwin itself with an unpatched version of gcc several
>times a day.
>
Gee. I hope Cygwin, and anything else you compile with that compiler for
Cygwin, does not have structures containing doubles. Without
MASK_AL
On Wed, Mar 12, 2003 at 04:33:04PM +0100, Ronald Landheer-Cieslak wrote:
>On Wed, 12 Mar 2003, Tim Prince wrote:
>> On Wednesday 12 March 2003 03:20, Ronald Landheer-Cieslak wrote:
>> > BTW: the FSF-provided gcc doesn't work OOTB on Cygwin, IIRC: there are a
>> > couple of patches to apply and a bi
On Wed, Mar 12, 2003 at 08:43:55PM +1100, Eugene Rosenzweig wrote:
>The latest message in gcc-announce
>http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-announce/2003/msg1.html says that
>i?86-*-win32 target will be deprecated as from gcc 3.4 (no date set).
If you look in the gcc list where this was discussed you'll
On Wed, 12 Mar 2003, Tim Prince wrote:
> On Wednesday 12 March 2003 03:20, Ronald Landheer-Cieslak wrote:
> > The cygwin target is i686-pc-cygwin
> >
> > That, and Cygwin without gcc would be pretty useless, so I don't worry too
> > much :)
> >
> > rlc
> >
> > BTW: the FSF-provided gcc doesn't work
On Wednesday 12 March 2003 03:20, Ronald Landheer-Cieslak wrote:
> The cygwin target is i686-pc-cygwin
>
> That, and Cygwin without gcc would be pretty useless, so I don't worry too
> much :)
>
> rlc
>
> BTW: the FSF-provided gcc doesn't work OOTB on Cygwin, IIRC: there are a
> couple of patches to
The cygwin target is i686-pc-cygwin
That, and Cygwin without gcc would be pretty useless, so I don't worry too
much :)
rlc
BTW: the FSF-provided gcc doesn't work OOTB on Cygwin, IIRC: there are a
couple of patches to apply and a bit of development to be done each time.
You might say that ther
The latest message in gcc-announce
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-announce/2003/msg1.html says that i?86-*-win32
target will be deprecated as from gcc 3.4 (no date set). The only win32
target on the list of supported platforms
http://gcc.gnu.org/install/specific.html is the cygwin one. Will there be
28 matches
Mail list logo
