Is part of gcc3 missing?

[Andy Koppe]

On 3 November 2010 14:59, Larry Hall (Cygwin) wrote:
> On 11/3/2010 10:10 AM, Lee Maschmeyer wrote:
>>
>> Hmm. Is that really the best approach unless absolutely necessary? "That
>> doesn't work so do something else" has always struck me as a less than
>> ideal
>> approach to debugging. :-) Is it possible that caml could be repaired so
>> it
>> doesn't depend on GCC4?
>
> I'm not sure "repaired" is the right word for this

I don't think it is. Gcc-4 is Cygwin 1.7's system compiler, so there's
nothing wrong with (parts of) the ocaml package depending on it.

But I guess the ability to switch the default compiler back to gcc-3
should come with a health warning: it may break stuff. Time to get rid
of the gcc alternatives setup perhaps, and require users to specify
gcc-3 explicitly if they still want it?

Andy

--
Problem reports:       http://cygwin.com/problems.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple