--- Brian Dessent <brian@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Ted Byers wrote: > > > Cygwin is ALWAYS well behind. > > Yes, yes, snipe away. It's easy to complain. But > have you considered > that there's perhaps a reason why we only ship 3.4 > with Cygwin, a reason > that's not rooted in us being lazy? Could it > possibly be that gcc 4.x > is not yet fully functional on Cygwin? Could it be > that C++ and java > exceptions are seriously broken due to lack of > shared libgcc and shared > libstdc++ and shared libjava? That we want to > switch the platform over > to Dwarf-2 from SJLJ but we aren't sure how this > will work on a platform > where we can't recompile the operating system, and > where Dwarf-2 > unwinding will thus fail in certain circumstances? > Could it just > possibly be that we have reasons for sticking with > 3.4 that don't amount > to "just haven't gotten around to it", that we would > rather ship a > compiler that works rather than one that falls on > its ass if you try to > throw an exception across a shared library? Can you > please stop > labeling Cygwin as gratuitously out of date for no > good reason? > Brian Chill. Relax. I only made an observation. I implied no criticism, and one can assume that there are reasons for it. Ever since I started using cygwin, it was well behind the latest release of gcc. For whatever reason there may be. I certainly said nothing that could be interpreted as suggesting that Cygwin is gratuitously out of date. If anything, I would have made the assumption that it reflected the challenge of getting everything in it to work the way you want it to. Some of the issues you raise as contributing to not proceeding yet beyond 3.4 are not relevant to the sorts of things I do, so for what I do with GCC, my own builds of 4.2.x suffice. There is no need to get upset. No one is criticizing or attacking you. Or complaining.
