On Thu, Apr 18, 2002 at 11:44:26AM -0400, Charles Wilson wrote: >The argument for style 1 against style 2 is this: Does anybody, other >than Chris, have ANY idea what the differences between gnu-gcc-2.95.3 >and cygwin-gcc-2.95.3-5 are? How many files are changed, and how >significantly? What options were used to build the cygwin binary >package? Before Chris reluctantly picked up the duty, did anyone other >than Mumit have a clue about the minutia of those differences (worse >yet, Mumit's version was a fork of the cgywin version, which itself was >a fork of the egcs version, which was a fork of the official gnu version...)
I know this is mainly a rhetorical question but actually, *I* don't have any idea what all of the differences are. I took over some patches from Mumit that are for all intensive porpoises just black magic. However, I have no problems generating the patch files, when required by downloading the tar ball from gcc.gnu.org and then doing the diffs. I have been trying to up-port my changes to the main trunk when possible but I suspect that there are still a few tweaks in the cygwin release that are not in gcc 3.1. From my point of view, when I download the source rpm for a package, I always find it rather annoying that I have to apply patches by hand. I'd rather just have the latest, greatest version of things extracted into a directory where I can type "configure/make" without any extra thinking involved. My 1c. Now back to this resurrected discusion... cgf