On Tue, 27 Nov 2007 18:38:15 +0100 FWIW, my 2 cents:
Corinna Vinschen wrote: > As for Charles' options how to go on: > > > (1) either you drop ada and java support, and we live with the > > ever-increasing brokenness that will accumulate in the sjlj code, or > > (2) you switch to dwarf2, we keep ada and java, but loose the > > callback stuff and break backward compatibility. > > (3) you release TWO entire SETS of compilers: an sjlj one with only > > C/C++/Fortran, and a "real" one with DWARF2 and the full compiler > > suite. This is a support nightmare; I recommend against. > > I'd opt for option 2. > > Dave? Charles? Anybody? I am also inclined towards preferring option 2. In my case, I have no interest in the ada or java compiler components, and as yet use cygwin for GUI work very little or nil. From what I understand of the issues, dwarf2 exception handling is the far cleaner approach, contrasted with sjlj. The jump from release 3 to release 4 GCC seems like the right time to make a switch that might confound some user's uninformed expectations (i.e. "What? You mean I cannot just switch from gcc-3.x.x to gcc-4.x.x on Cygwin without knowing about ramifications?"). If the switch isn't made at the 3-4 transition boundary it becomes that much less easily remembered and communicated to users as they come along. I'm also in agreement with the notion expressed by Brian Dessent (in [EMAIL PROTECTED]): "[...] switch to DW2 exception handling as default for all of Cygwin and then think about providing a fallback/parallel installation sjlj package for anyone doing Win32 GUI stuff". Not that I suggest it would be a trivial effort for someone to support such a parallel package; but if someone was *willing* to do so it seems like a solution that would provide options valuable to some Cygwin users. Regards. -- All unaccompanied children will be given espresso and a free kitten. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Find out how you can get spam free email. http://www.bluebottle.com/tag/3