Christopher Faylor wrote on 09 September 2008 19:59:
> On Tue, Sep 09, 2008 at 02:35:23PM -0400, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>> On Tue, Sep 09, 2008 at 07:01:31PM +0100, Dave Korn wrote:
>>> Christopher Faylor wrote on 09 September 2008 18:51:
>>>> On Tue, Sep 09, 2008 at 06:45:51PM +0100, Dave Korn wrote:
>>>> Btw, does this version remove the -mno-cygwin option? If so, I may
>>>> have to leave work early so that I can have a celebratory beverage.
>>>
>>> Sorry :( no beer for you today. It's a fairly straight build of
>>> released 4.3.0 with just a bit of patching for shared libgcc etc.
>>>
>>> Anyway, I'll be doing the upload later tonight after I get home from
>>> work. I thought it unlikely that the category settings would be
>>> persisted, but don't want to get caught out by making a dumb
>>> assumption.... if at all possible ...
>>
>> I thought the next version of gcc was not going to perpetuate the
>> -mno-cygwin madness. I'd really prefer not releasing a version with
>> this option even if it is just commented out.
This is truely experimental stuff, but if it works well I'm planning to move
very fast to a 4.3.2 release, so I'll patch it out there; but I've kept
everyone waiting more than long enough and have limited free time.
> Btw, Dave, do you want me to sponsor you as one of the new
> cygwin-on-windows maintainers? I was suggesting Kai Tietz as another
> alternative for MinGW. It would be nice to have an active Cygwin
> maintainer as well.
Yes please! Modulo the above mentioned resource constraints, but I'm still
more than glad to help out.
Stand back. Here it comes ...
cheers,
DaveK
--
Can't think of a witty .sigline today....
