cygwin gcc 3.4 and cygwin

[Brian Ford]

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 gcc the same as Cygwin gcc.

With Redhat's influence on the free software world, I would think,
mistakenly, I guess, that Cygwin local patches would be short-lived,
migrating relatively quickly back to the official sources.  What is wrong
with this assumption?

Just trying to understand and help out, not cause problems or insult.

Thanks.

Christopher Faylor wrote:

FWIW, I build cygwin itself with an unpatched version of gcc several times
a day.

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 incompatible.

Doesn't this seem bad?

Christopher Faylor wrote:

Oh, it seems horrific.  Now I won't be able to sleep at night.  Thanks a
lot.

-- 
Brian Ford
Senior Realtime Software Engineer
VITAL - Visual Simulation Systems
FlightSafety International
Phone: 314-551-8460
Fax:   314-551-8444


--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting:         http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/