Release 1.5.9 soon
Sat Mar 20 02:04:00 GMT 2004
> 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 , which our bug #13420  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