X-Recipient: archive-cygwin AT delorie DOT com X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Message-ID: <4AAA5831.3020103@gmail.com> Date: Fri, 11 Sep 2009 15:01:21 +0100 From: Dave Korn User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.17 (Windows/20080914) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Vincent R." CC: Dave Korn , cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Subject: Re: gcc4.4 References: <898a6abd66f16c3b76e823ecd65fde39 AT mail DOT smartmobili DOT com> <4AA97E23 DOT 8090603 AT gmail DOT com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Vincent R. wrote: >> And then after that..... I'll probably be more inclined to go > straight >> for >> a test version of 4.5.0, and skip over 4.4 series altogether. > > Is there any reason to ignore 4.4 family ? Main reason, as Eric suggests, is time. I've had to prepare and test a big set of patches for GCC HEAD, then do a lot of the same work again backporting them to 4.3, I really just don't have the time, drive space, cpu cycles or motivation to do it all a third time for 4.4 series. Also, I think 4.5 series is going to be better than 4.4; there were some aliasing problems that couldn't be worked around that have since been fixed by a rewrite of the affected area, IIRC, and I expect the Fortran-and-number-crunching folks will enjoy playing with the new Graphite loop optimisations. cheers, DaveK -- Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/ Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple