On Apr 7 11:08, Christopher Faylor wrote: > On Tue, Apr 07, 2009 at 10:57:02AM -0400, Charles Wilson wrote: > >Christopher Faylor wrote: > >> I don't entirely understand when people think it's ok to make sweeping > >> changes for 1.7 and when they think we need to be conservative. > > > >MHO is that 1.7+gcc4 is already such a sweeping change (e.g. > >"conservative" left the building sometime last year), that if we DO plan > >on any more such sweeping changes before cygwin2.dll it's better to do > >'em now. > > > >OTOH, if we DON'T actually plan on any more such changes, then there's > >no reason to make changes gratuitously, no matter how Just Mean We Are. > > > >> I think it is very regrettable that Cygwin doesn't have the same int > >> types as linux and it would be interesting to see how much would be > >> broken by changing these types. > > > >"Interesting" in the sense of the old Chinese curse [*], I assume? > > Or as in the "WJM" aforementioned sense.
Sounds like "WJM" matches exactly what my patch does. I've checked it in. Corinna -- Corinna Vinschen Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to Cygwin Project Co-Leader cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Red Hat
