On 28 November 2007 13:30, Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote:
> On 28/11/2007, Dave Korn <dave.korn@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> On 28 November 2007 10:29, Ankur Gupta wrote:
>>
>>> Hello,
>>>
>>> I am newly assigned to GNU CC work. I am using Win-xp-sp2 and Cygwin to
>>> build GCC. I have successfully installed the 'binutils', but while
>>> building GCC below errors are being issued:
>>
>> These kinds of minor issues in building or using the compiler really
>> belong on the gcc-help list; this list is intended for ongoing development
>> work on the internals of the compiler itself. However, since you're
>> here...
>
> I humbly think this encourages the wrong behaviour. People that don't
> bother to look for the correct list, typically don't bother to edit
> the CC fields, so you end up with their replies in gcc again. This
> case is even worse, since he posted to both lists! And he got the
> answer here, so he actually was right doing what he did.
>
> I would like to propose that, as a rule of thumb, if you wish to
> answer the question, first check the gcc-help archives whether it has
> been answered already, if not, then the answer must be posted to
> gcc-help and never to the gcc list. Of course this doesn't apply if
> you reply but don't answer the question.
Well, I appreciate your point, but as long as I'm going to be sending an
essentially content-free post redirecting the OP to the correct list, it seems
a little unkind to not mention something that I'm aware of that could send
them away happy. And if I saw a cross-post, I'd trim gcc@ and only reply in
gcc-help@, but this was a multi-post and I didn't see the gcc-help posting.
You're right of course that I could have checked the gcc-help archive before
replying and I'll try and remember to do that in future.
cheers,
DaveK
--
Can't think of a witty .sigline today....
