X-Recipient: archive-cygwin AT delorie DOT com
X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.7 required=5.0	tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FROM,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,T_TO_NO_BRKTS_FREEMAIL
X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <4CD178DE.7010308@cygwin.com>
References: <21794C64742846718853014B087D0E6F AT cit DOT wayne DOT edu>	<4CD178DE DOT 7010308 AT cygwin DOT com>
Date: Wed, 3 Nov 2010 19:25:32 +0000
Message-ID: <AANLkTi=1gYKdWyPsSOYuysHS6QVRTsccZKy3KuET161G@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Is part of gcc3 missing?
From: Andy Koppe <andy DOT koppe AT gmail DOT com>
To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
X-IsSubscribed: yes
Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <cygwin.cygwin.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:cygwin-unsubscribe-archive-cygwin=delorie DOT com AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Archive: <http://sourceware.org/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post: <mailto:cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help: <mailto:cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs>
Sender: cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com

On 3 November 2010 14:59, Larry Hall (Cygwin) wrote:
> On 11/3/2010 10:10 AM, Lee Maschmeyer wrote:
>>
>> Hmm. Is that really the best approach unless absolutely necessary? "That
>> doesn't work so do something else" has always struck me as a less than
>> ideal
>> approach to debugging. :-) Is it possible that caml could be repaired so
>> it
>> doesn't depend on GCC4?
>
> I'm not sure "repaired" is the right word for this

I don't think it is. Gcc-4 is Cygwin 1.7's system compiler, so there's
nothing wrong with (parts of) the ocaml package depending on it.

But I guess the ability to switch the default compiler back to gcc-3
should come with a health warning: it may break stuff. Time to get rid
of the gcc alternatives setup perhaps, and require users to specify
gcc-3 explicitly if they still want it?

Andy

--
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