Re: Building GCC 3.3 / MingW: The Saga Continues

[Mohan Embar <gnustuff at thisiscool dot com>]

>Mohan> How impractical is this? Could someone educate me? Given the
>Mohan> large amount of code sharing made possible with MS's
>Mohan> BSD-layer-wannabe implementation, although imperfect, wouldn't
>Mohan> creating two parallel code sets create a maintenance headache?
>
Tom> That's what I thought, too, but the more Windows-knowledgeable people
Tom> think otherwise.

I'm all ears as to the rationale behind splitting up the code. I've
searched the list a bit but couldn't find any further references to
this, and I'm not seeing the light yet.

>Mohan> To my knowledge, a formal patch was never created for
>Mohan> Ranjit's suggestion:
>Mohan> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/java/2002-12/msg00295.html
>
Tom> I think there was another thread a bit later explaining that this
Tom> approach wouldn't work too well in the end.

I did a search on ECONNREFUSED and sockerrno and came up dry.
Again, I'm eager to learn why this approach isn't viable.

-- Mohan
http://www.thisiscool.com/
http://www.animalsong.org/