Release 1.5.9 soon

Nicholas Wourms
Sat Mar 20 02:04:00 GMT 2004

cgf wrote:
> I was using 3.4 on cygwin sources for my personal builds but I had to
> give up due to flakiness.  I'm sure it's better now.  I think I probably
> compiled setup.exe at some point, too, but I don't remember exactly.

Maybe it isn't as bad as it seems, I guess we'll see.  One plus is that 
according to bug #9941 [1], which our bug #13420 [2] was marked a 
duplicate of, they have supposedly "fixed" g++ miscompiling #pragma 
interface/implementation in 3.4/3.5 branches.  I hope this is true, 
although I somewhat skeptical since they seem to be lumping our problem 
in with Darwin's problem.  Unfortunately I've yet to test it, but since 
it is a one-liner, perhaps someone might see if it works in 3.3...

> But, I have to say that, for Red Hat, it isn't a very popular story when
> we tell customers "Oh, and in our next release, your previously-built
> binaries may not work right and your source code may not compile."  This
> is one of the, IMO, big drawbacks of open source.  A company like Red Hat

I hear you, I only wish they'd take a page from the BSDs, where it seems 
maintaining compatibility is a top priority.

> is basically at the mercy of decisions like this over which they have no
> control.  Of course, we could throw people at the problem if we really
> wanted to influence decisions, I suppose.

True.  I always thought things operated more smoothly when Cygnus had 
their egcs branch and were calling the shots.



More information about the Cygwin-developers mailing list