This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the Cygwin project.
Re: Resolved Re: gcc-3.2-1/i686-pc-cygwin/gcc/genflags is segfaulting
- From: "lhall at pop dot ma dot ultranet dot com" <lhall at pop dot ma dot ultranet dot com>
- To: mdupont777 at yahoo dot com, rbcollins at cygwin dot com, cygwin at cygwin dot com
- Date: Tue, 3 Dec 2002 11:53:48 -0500
- Subject: Re: Resolved Re: gcc-3.2-1/i686-pc-cygwin/gcc/genflags is segfaulting
- Reply-to: lhall at rfk dot com
>From: James Michael DuPont email@example.com
>Date: Tue, 3 Dec 2002 07:37:34 -0800 (PST)
>To: firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org
>Subject: Re: Resolved Re: gcc-3.2-1/i686-pc-cygwin/gcc/genflags is
> I guess the assumption there is that
> the responder is actually purposefully withholding information. Why
> someone would assume that, I don't know.
>I dont believe that at all.
Actually, this reference was more generic and in the context in which
I wrote it, it doesn't really apply to your post. You didn't get any
response. Prior situations on which I was ruminating are those where a
response is given but the recipient feels it's intentially incomplete. I
suppose one could stretch this interpretation and say it covers cases
like yours where you don't get any answer (that would be a very incomplete
answer! ;-) ) but that's not the issue I was discussing. So forgive me if
you misinterpreted this general comment as one directed solely at you.
>I was just quite suprized that noone said "oh, i am building 3.2-1 fine
>under cygwin itself". Very suprized in fact, but if chris is using the
>cross compiler, then it could be that none has recompiled this very
>version number, or if they did, saw the message or felt like answering.
Right. Can happen, unfortunately.
>Silly me in thinking that something positive would come from making
>sarcastic jibes, it looks like I am not making any friends with my
Well, stranger things have happened but I think your statement suggests
that you recognize that this isn't the best avenue when looking for help.
>> 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.
>Well since the problem as righted itself, I dont think there is any
>need, if it was reoccuring, then I would try and debug some more, but I
>just wanted to know if anyone else has the same problem.
Fair enough. Looks like no one has or if they have, they're not talking
about it. ;-) I tend to agree that this pretty much a non-issue given
(1) It apparently works in a cross-compile environment.
(2) The subsequently packaged source builds fine.
>Please accept my apologies, and I will try and read the mailling list
>some more, maybe even make a cygwin-gcc faq if there is none yet.
I wasn't really offended. Just a bit annoyed by the implications and the
tone. But you've acknowledged this as an issue so I don't see a problem
going forward. I certainly acknowledge that I used your post as a chance
to point out the larger issue of list etiquette which your post brought to
light. Sorry if that caused you any confusion.
There is no cygwin-gcc FAQ AFAIK. There's just a general FAQ at
http://cygwin.com/faq/ which covers general building issues. If you
have some Cygwin-gcc issues that qualify as FAQs (i.e. frequently asked),
feel free to post your entries to the list. I'm sure David Starks-Browning
will pick up on them.
mail2web - Check your email from the web at
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting: http://cygwin.com/bugs.html