--- Christopher Faylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > It's supported, but, like everything, unless you can > demonstrate with > a *simple* test case that there is actually a gcc > problem (which is > unlikely) rather than a programming error (which is > more likely), you > aren't apt to get much help.
thanks, that's a quick reply ;) I'll see what I can produce, but I don't have high hopes. Is it a reasonable tactic to nail down the bug to compare gcc assembler output for a single function between i386-cygwin and i386-linux? Can I expect them to be similar for the same version of the compiler when I compile them with the same flags? cheers, dalibor topic __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Shopping - Send Flowers for Valentine's Day http://shopping.yahoo.com -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Bug reporting: http://cygwin.com/bugs.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
