This is the mail archive of the gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GCC project.

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]

Re: Reason for cygwin GCC 2.97 non-bootstrap found

To: rth at redhat dot com
Subject: Re: Reason for cygwin GCC 2.97 non-bootstrap found
From: DJ Delorie <dj at delorie dot com>
Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2000 23:01:30 -0500
CC: zackw at Stanford dot EDU, Kelley dot Cook at home dot com, Cygwin at sources dot redhat dot com, gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu dot org, gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org
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>


> 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.

Follow-Ups:
- Re: Reason for cygwin GCC 2.97 non-bootstrap found
  - From: Richard Henderson

References:
- Reason for cygwin GCC 2.97 non-bootstrap found
  - From: Kelley Cook
- Re: Reason for cygwin GCC 2.97 non-bootstrap found
  - From: Zack Weinberg
- Re: Reason for cygwin GCC 2.97 non-bootstrap found
  - From: Richard Henderson
- Re: Reason for cygwin GCC 2.97 non-bootstrap found
  - From: Zack Weinberg
- Re: Reason for cygwin GCC 2.97 non-bootstrap found
  - From: Richard Henderson

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]