This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the Cygwin project.
Re: cygwin gcc vs official gcc?
- From: Christopher Faylor <cgf at redhat dot com>
- To: cygwin at cygwin dot com
- Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2003 12:43:29 -0500
- Subject: Re: cygwin gcc vs official gcc?
- References: <Pine.GSO.4.44.0302121653110.21272-100000@eos>
- Reply-to: cygwin at cygwin dot com
On Wed, Feb 12, 2003 at 04:53:29PM -0600, Brian Ford wrote:
>What is the state of/reason for Cygwin/Mingw specific mods to official
>gcc sources? I assume these mods will eventually make it in to the
>official tree, right? What is the typical migration path?
>I ask, because I am trying to do DWARF2 development work for Cygwin.
>I thought that I should start with current gcc (3.2.2) and binutils
>(220.127.116.11) sources (or CVS). But, I just ran into a double alignment ABI
>breakage with the official gcc sources. I have applied the proper patch
>locally to fix it, but I wonder why it has not been officially submitted
>yet? I also wonder how many other gotcha's there are?
>What should a Cygwin developer use as a base for binutils and gcc
Since most of your work will probably require approval from people outside
of cygwin/mingw, it's best to stick with the official branches. We can
backpatch them into the cygwin/mingw branch as appropriate.
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting: http://cygwin.com/bugs.html