> IMO there's no pressing reason to do _any_ of it in libiberty, The original patches included an implementation of valloc() in libiberty, for systems that didn't have one, so that ggc could rely on a working valloc. -- Want to unsubscribe from this list? Send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
- Reason for cygwin GCC 2.97 non-bootstrap found Kelley Cook
- Re: Reason for cygwin GCC 2.97 non-bootstrap found DJ Delorie
- Re: Reason for cygwin GCC 2.97 non-bootstrap found Zack Weinberg
- Re: Reason for cygwin GCC 2.97 non-bootstrap f... Christopher Faylor
- Re: Reason for cygwin GCC 2.97 non-bootstr... Zack Weinberg
- Re: Reason for cygwin GCC 2.97 non-boo... Christopher Faylor
- Re: Reason for cygwin GCC 2.97 no... Zack Weinberg
- Re: Reason for cygwin GCC 2.97 non-bootstrap f... Richard Henderson
- Re: Reason for cygwin GCC 2.97 non-bootstr... Zack Weinberg
- Re: Reason for cygwin GCC 2.97 non-boo... Richard Henderson
- Re: Reason for cygwin GCC 2.97 no... DJ Delorie
- Re: Reason for cygwin GCC 2.9... Richard Henderson
- Re: Reason for cygwin GCC... DJ Delorie
- Re: Reason for cygwin GCC 2.97 non-bootstrap found Kelley Cook
- Re: Reason for cygwin GCC 2.97 non-bootstrap f... Zack Weinberg
- Re: Reason for cygwin GCC 2.97 non-bootstr... Phil Edwards
- Re: Reason for cygwin GCC 2.97 non-boo... Zack Weinberg
- Re: Reason for cygwin GCC 2.97 no... Chris Abbey
- Re: Reason for cygwin GCC 2.9... Zack Weinberg
- Re: Reason for cygwin GCC 2.97 no... Phil Edwards
- Re: Reason for cygwin GCC 2.97 non-bootstr... DJ Delorie
