I thought I had a legitimate concern and question, not one that deserved "just" a sarcastic response.
It would be easy to accendentally release things for Cygwin that are ABI incompatible with Cygwin's gcc. Why do we persist this way? I would be happy to do the necessary leg work to make vanilla gcc the same as Cygwin gcc. With Redhat's influence on the free software world, I would think, mistakenly, I guess, that Cygwin local patches would be short-lived, migrating relatively quickly back to the official sources. What is wrong with this assumption? Just trying to understand and help out, not cause problems or insult. Thanks. Christopher Faylor wrote: FWIW, I build cygwin itself with an unpatched version of gcc several times a day. Brian Ford wrote: Gee. I hope Cygwin, and anything else you compile with that compiler for Cygwin, does not have structures containing doubles. Without MASK_ALIGN_DOUBLE in TARGET_SUBTARGET_DEFAULT of gcc/config/i386/cygwin.h, the standard Cygwin compiler and vanilla gcc are ABI incompatible. Doesn't this seem bad? Christopher Faylor wrote: Oh, it seems horrific. Now I won't be able to sleep at night. Thanks a lot. -- Brian Ford Senior Realtime Software Engineer VITAL - Visual Simulation Systems FlightSafety International Phone: 314-551-8460 Fax: 314-551-8444 -- 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/