This is the mail archive of the cygwin-developers@cygwin.com mailing list for the Cygwin project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: Release 1.5.9 soon


cgf wrote:
I was using 3.4 on cygwin sources for my personal builds but I had to
give up due to flakiness.  I'm sure it's better now.  I think I probably
compiled setup.exe at some point, too, but I don't remember exactly.

Maybe it isn't as bad as it seems, I guess we'll see. One plus is that according to bug #9941 [1], which our bug #13420 [2] was marked a duplicate of, they have supposedly "fixed" g++ miscompiling #pragma interface/implementation in 3.4/3.5 branches. I hope this is true, although I somewhat skeptical since they seem to be lumping our problem in with Darwin's problem. Unfortunately I've yet to test it, but since it is a one-liner, perhaps someone might see if it works in 3.3...


But, I have to say that, for Red Hat, it isn't a very popular story when
we tell customers "Oh, and in our next release, your previously-built
binaries may not work right and your source code may not compile."  This
is one of the, IMO, big drawbacks of open source.  A company like Red Hat

I hear you, I only wish they'd take a page from the BSDs, where it seems maintaining compatibility is a top priority.


is basically at the mercy of decisions like this over which they have no
control.  Of course, we could throw people at the problem if we really
wanted to influence decisions, I suppose.

True. I always thought things operated more smoothly when Cygnus had their egcs branch and were calling the shots.


Cheers,
Nicholas

[1] http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=9941
[2] http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=13420


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]