Building GCC 4.3.0 on Cygwin...

[Tim Prince]

cgf-use-the-mailinglist-please@cygwin.com wrote:

> There is no conspiracy.  What is needed is for there to be a vocal
> advocate on the gcc list for Windows patches.  I can only approve a very
> limited amount of stuff so we need gcc global maintainers to approve the
> majority of Windows fixes.
I didn't call it a conspiracy, but I myself have been the recipient of 
comments from Microsoft personnel like "we don't want you using cygwin, 
we won't fix Windows bugs which are reported mainly by cygwin users."  I 
don't claim to see uniformity in positions taken by people representing 
Microsoft.
The people you mention are not the only ones who have discontinued 
visible activity after taking a prominent role in cygwin.
Not that I have the competence to solve any such problems, but if you 
check gcc-testsuite you should see that I have posted the greatest 
number of cygwin results the last 10 years, since well before my present 
employment.  The average time for action on the few gcc PR's and patches 
I have proposed exceeds a year, so I don't claim an effective record. 
If evidence is presented that my doing so has hindered the success of 
cygwin, or constitutes a conflict of interest, I will not attempt to 
resume testing.
I won't comment on the magnitude of efforts (sometimes successful) by 
non-open software vendors to get even treatment from Microsoft; so I 
mention my obligation to disclaim any relationship between what I say 
here and my employer's activities.

--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports:       http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/