Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help@sourceware.cygnus.com; run by ezmlm
Sender: cygwin-owner@sources.redhat.com
Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2000 20:23:56 -0800
From: Richard Henderson <rth@redhat.com>
To: DJ Delorie <dj@delorie.com>
Cc: zackw@Stanford.EDU, Kelley.Cook@home.com, Cygwin@sources.redhat.com,
        gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org, gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: Re: Reason for cygwin GCC 2.97 non-bootstrap found
Message-ID: <20001120202356.A17461@redhat.com>
References: <200011202245.eAKMjjN27680@plmlir3.mail.eds.com> <20001120154222.O17712@wolery.stanford.edu> <20001120192414.D17317@redhat.com> <20001120193449.Y17712@wolery.stanford.edu> <20001120194446.A17399@redhat.com> <200011210401.XAA10968@envy.delorie.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
In-Reply-To: <200011210401.XAA10968@envy.delorie.com>; from DJ Delorie on Mon, Nov 20, 2000 at 11:01:30PM -0500

On Mon, Nov 20, 2000 at 11:01:30PM -0500, DJ Delorie wrote:
> > IMO there's no pressing reason to do _any_ of it in libiberty,
> 
> The original patches included an implementation of valloc() in
> libiberty, for systems that didn't have one, so that ggc could rely on
> a working valloc.

The point being?  There's _still_ no reason it _must_ be done
in libiberty.


r~

--
Want to unsubscribe from this list?
Send a message to cygwin-unsubscribe@sourceware.cygnus.com