This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the Cygwin project.
Re: GCC-4.7.2-2: Go/No-go?
- From: Thomas Wolff <towo at towo dot net>
- To: cygwin-apps at cygwin dot com
- Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2013 22:42:06 +0200
- 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> <5166ADBA dot 9000807 at gmail dot com>
Am 11.04.2013 14:34, schrieb Dave Korn:
I would appreciate to keep it as gcc-3. The reason is quite peculiar;
gcc-4 changed the order of variables in the stack frame of a function
call, which led to one very specific interworking malfunction (between
mintty and mined) which in turn unveiled a very subtle bug. This is
material for very interesting debugging exercises for students... Not
sure whether it's significant but the changed variable order might in
fact affect other software as well.
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.