This is the mail archive of the 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: Resolved Re: gcc-3.2-1/i686-pc-cygwin/gcc/genflags is segfaulting

At 06:52 AM 12/3/2002, James Michael DuPont wrote:

> > Chris Faylor, as a search of the announce lists would have told you.
> > I think he builds his packages on linux with a cross-compiler, so
> > wouldn't have any advice for your particular problem.
>OK, that is what I was thinking. I will start looking for instructions
>on doing this, I have the mingw32 cross compiler setup under debian at
>In particular I would be interested in being able to convert a debian
>package into a cygwin package for the installer....
>you might be interested in this 
>Here you can see our effort to cross compile using the debian system
>for guiding the packaging and building
> > 
> > > In any case, the gcc-3.2-3 builds fine,
> > > but the code for gcc-3.2-1 still segfaults.
> > > 
> > > I guess you guys really just dont care?
> > 
> > You got it. Thats why there are thousands of folk using what we've
> > produced. We just don't care.
>Well, I think you might care, but not if the compiler can bootstrap
>under cygwin. 
>Maybe this should be a release criterion?
>Maybe you don't care if the gcc is fully usable before it is release?
>I hereby offically volunteer to check any release of the compile if it
>compiles before it is taken into the distribution. Some people (like
>me) maintain thier own set of patches for the gcc, and need to be able
>to compile it, not only use it.
> > 
> > Get a grip. This is a high noise news group, things get dropped.
> > Deal.
>Sure, I just figured after my third mail getting ignored that I can ask
>least check if anyone is reading these mails.

Of course, you can do as you want but generally speaking, if you don't 
get a response from this list, no one has an obvious answer to offer.
Since we're all being generous enough to allow each other the freedom
to do as we want here, I'd like to lament that this even needs to be
pointed out.  Yes I know, we'll always have those that will become 
annoyed, despondent, angry or otherwise when their queries aren't answered
in some form (or to their liking).  Then there will be those on the other
side that will become enraged or otherwise miffed when someone who attempts
to provide at least a response to any query doesn't provide more than just 
a general pointer or comment.  I guess the assumption there is that the 
responder is actually purposefully withholding information.  Why someone 
would assume that, I don't know.  But it seems to be a loosing battle.  I'm 
not sure why either side assumes some malevolence or apathy in these 
situations.  I'm not really looking for an answer to this of course.  I doubt 
there is one.  Let's call it a rhetorical issue.  But this thread pointed
out the need to state these truisms (on this list at least).  Now back to 
the specifics of this thread.

Feel free to jump in and try to natively build any package which is of 
interest to you and report any problems you find.  Patches are welcomed
as well.

In terms of whether this list is actually read by anyone, you only need to
check the email archives to answer that.  It's pretty clear.  Or was your 
comment a rhetorical one as well?

Larry Hall                    
RFK Partners, Inc.            
838 Washington Street                   (508) 893-9779 - RFK Office
Holliston, MA 01746                     (508) 893-9889 - FAX

Unsubscribe info:
Bug reporting:

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