Re: gcc package idea for consideration.

[Danny Smith <danny_r_smith_2001 at yahoo dot co dot nz>]

 --- Christopher Faylor <cgf at redhat dot com> wrote: > On Sun, Apr 27, 2003 at
04:09:16AM +1000, Gareth Pearce wrote:
> >>Ahh, I hate it when I'm right, I suspected this responce.  I would
> >>suggest a gcc-testing version based on the mingw branch - but, that
> >>would basically be a gcc package anyway.  (since cygwin-mingw doesnt
> >>appear to have a 3.3 or 3.4 based branch yet.)
> >
> >replying to myself here (at 4am noless).  I realise the above comment
> >is silly - since theres not like theres a gcc 3.2.3 cygwin-mingw branch
> >either.  (AFAICT) So either way i'd be having some fun doing some merge
> >(yay, i just love merging).  (although 3.3 would be harder, maybe it
> >would be a better experience).
> 
> I don't mind doing the merge to 3.3 if you're willing to be the maintainer.
> I've already started the dialog with Danny about how to go about this anyway.
> 
> cgf 

I haven't seen post Chris mentioned. I have been under heavy spam attack lately
and might have been overzealous with filters.

This is my side of story:
I have  3.2.3 and 3.3 CVS with cygming patchset and have been building and
testing both regularly on cygwin and mingw.  I am about to release 3.2.3
binariries for mingw and will upload the diff against CVS for that at same
time.  So you could use that.  I could also upload a 3.3 diff.  Altenatively I
could apply the diff's myself to a clean cygwin-mingw CVS branches   

There are substantial structural changes between 3.2.x and 3.3 so be warned to
expect merge conflicts if doing the merge yourself.

3.4 (FSF sources) is in relatively good shape.  The -mms-bitfield support and
fastcall support are official, as is the -mno-cygwin fudge, as indicated by
Chris. I haven't merged in the dll-exe exception hackery in my local tree nor
Mumit's old dllimport patches.  The former needs a lot of work to make it
acceptable to FSF. Most of the latter are not really working anyway (they don't
do any harm either). I will try in near future to submit the working pieces
(like don't mark inline functions as dllimport) to GCC-patches.

PCH (in 3.4) has problems, but still early days.

If your interested in Ada for cygwin, you will need a pre-existing Ada compiler
and runtime libs to bootstrap. 

If you are interested in Java, Mohan Embar and Ranjit Matthews have
mingw-specific patchsets for 3.3 (some may also apply to cygwin) that have not
yet made into official sources.

Danny

http://mobile.yahoo.com.au - Yahoo! Mobile
- Check & compose your email via SMS on your Telstra or Vodafone mobile.