Why aren't mingw local patches in FSF tree?

Jeff Sturm jsturm@one-point.com
Wed Mar 5 13:47:00 GMT 2003

On Tue, 4 Mar 2003, Danny Smith wrote:
> I'm not subscribed to this list but I do scan. The subject line was
> ughed at lately

That was me...

> Many of the cygwin/mingw local patches (in particular,  __fastcall   and
> native bitfield support) have been committed to trunk but not to 3.3
> branch.  The main exceptions are:


Great summary, thanks for clearing that up.

After all, I was happy to find that I could check out 3.3 and build a
perfectly usable mingw compiler.

Now for the purposes of testing 3.3 I won't be installing any mingw-local
patches.  I keep a single source tree for all my builds.  Also the point
of submitting test results here is to validate a GCC release, not
Mingw's or anyone elses.  Besides I no longer have the time to contribute
directly to Mingw or subscribe to their mailing list.

For the sake of any discussion on this mailing list I'm going to assume
unpatched GCC sources unless stated otherwise.

> It "would be nice" (tm) If the mingw project had more developers with
> Ranjit's energy and perseverence.  Ranjit, surely you will accept CVS
> write approval after all the flowers you have been receiving.

Well said.


More information about the Java mailing list