Is part of gcc3 missing?

Larry Hall (Cygwin)
Wed Nov 3 15:27:00 GMT 2010

On 11/3/2010 10:10 AM, Lee Maschmeyer wrote:
> Hmm. Is that really the best approach unless absolutely necessary? "That
> doesn't work so do something else" has always struck me as a less than ideal
> approach to debugging. :-) Is it possible that caml could be repaired so it
> doesn't depend on GCC4?

I'm not sure "repaired" is the right word for this but I expect it would be
possible to do this.  I'm not sure anyone would consider it worth the time
though.  Presumably, some older release of ocaml would build with gcc-3,
though I think you're heading in the wrong direction if you have as a goal
to avoid build problems in the future.  But if you are intent on going this
route, you might find downgrading your ocaml packages to 3.08 will help
side-step the issue.  Given it's age, I would be surprised if it were built
with gcc-4, though I didn't actually check that.

Larry Hall                    
RFK Partners, Inc.                      (508) 893-9779 - RFK Office
216 Dalton Rd.                          (508) 893-9889 - FAX
Holliston, MA 01746


A: Yes.
> Q: Are you sure?
>> A: Because it reverses the logical flow of conversation.
>>> Q: Why is top posting annoying in email?

Problem reports:
Unsubscribe info:

More information about the Cygwin mailing list