This is the mail archive of the 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 3.2-3 installation (gold star alert)

On Sat, 26 Apr 2003, Christopher Faylor wrote:

> On Sun, Apr 27, 2003 at 01:12:08AM +1000, Gareth Pearce wrote:
> >> > > Is there a stable (not prerelease) version in CygWin?
> >> >
> >> > Alex,
> >> > Don't let the version string fool you -- this gcc version has been used
> >> > by thousands of people since last November.  I'd say it's pretty stable.
> >> > :-)
> >> > Igor
> >>
> >> OK.
> >> It is good news.
> >>
> >> Nevertheless, why is gcc-3.2 a prerelease version?
> >
> >'prerelease' may infact be a misnomer in this situation.  I believe
> >that it is infact a 'post release' version.  It is pre-release in the
> >sense that it was produced before the next release.  But that release
> >was 3.2.1.  Due to the fact that cygwin is a somewhat unusal situation
> >with respect to gcc, it has its own branch in the gcc cvs.  Therefore
> >it is not subject to the same release system that the main gcc compiler
> >is.  However if I remember correctly, this release was made 'just
> >after' the mainline released 3.2 - it is essentially 'the released 3.2'
> >with 'cygwin modifications'.  The version is just a label.  It provides
> >identification information.
> >
> >>When will 'a not-prerelease version of gcc-3.2' be in CygWin?
> >
> >your reading more into the word prerelease then you should, it seems.
> >prerelease in the gcc version label sense does not mean unstable, and
> >lacking in testing.  prerelease just means 'not official gcc release'.
> >Chris (reluctant gcc maintainer) could of changed that to 'cygwin
> >release' if he felt so inclined, but he did not.
> >
> >If you want a version of gcc 3.2 which does Not have (prerelease) in
> >it, you can download the official gcc release (if you can still find
> >3.2) and compile it yourself (noting that it will not have explicit
> >cygwin gcc aditions such as -mno-cygwin).  Or you could binary edit the
> >appropriate files and change your currently installed version.  Neither
> >would actually benifit you in the slightest, I do suspect.
> Can we get a gold star for Gareth, here?  He answered this question
> perfectly.
> It's really astonishingly nice to see people reasoning things through
> like this.
> cgf

Done.  Considering also his suggestions on cygwin-apps, it's surely well
      |\      _,,,---,,_		pechtcha at cs dot nyu dot edu
ZZZzz /,`.-'`'    -.  ;-;;,_		igor at watson dot ibm dot com
     |,4-  ) )-,_. ,\ (  `'-'		Igor Pechtchanski
    '---''(_/--'  `-'\_) fL	a.k.a JaguaR-R-R-r-r-r-.-.-.  Meow!

Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty.
  -- Leto II

Unsubscribe info:
Problem reports:

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