This is the mail archive of the cygwin-apps mailing list for the Cygwin project.

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: GCC-4.7.2-2: Go/No-go?

Am 11.04.2013 14:34, schrieb Dave Korn:
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.
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.

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]