This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the Cygwin project.
Re: GCC-4.7.2-2: Go/No-go?
- From: Dave Korn <dave dot korn dot cygwin at gmail dot com>
- To: cygwin-apps at cygwin dot com
- Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2013 13:34:02 +0100
- Subject: Re: GCC-4.7.2-2: Go/No-go?
- References: <51643F10 dot 7000905 at gmail dot com> <87eheixuz8 dot fsf at Rainer dot invalid> <20130410154730 dot GA404 at ednor dot casa dot cgf dot cx> <516599BE dot 7090000 at gmail dot com> <51661EA2 dot 1070801 at users dot sourceforge dot net> <51665212 dot 6050101 at gmail dot com> <51665F0F dot 8040902 at users dot sourceforge dot net> <20130411101342 dot GA12461 at calimero dot vinschen dot de> <5166A928 dot 8030805 at gmail dot com> <20130411121925 dot GA24666 at calimero dot vinschen dot de>
On 11/04/2013 13:19, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>>>> On 2013-04-11 01:02, Dave Korn wrote:
>>>>> Yep, sure. *sigh*, I'm sure we'll suddenly find out that someone was using
>>>>> it and wants to know where it's gone. (I suppose if that happens I could
>>>>> always consider rolling a gcc3 package with all -3 suffixed executables.)
> If you really want to stick to an old
> gcc, make sure it's not the default. Call it gcc-3 or legacy-gcc, but
> let's get it out of the way of the most recent version.
Yes, that's what I meant to imply by the wording. Different name + suffixed
executables = out of the way.
Also, I don't plan on doing it unless there's significant demand.