Mail Archives: cygwin-apps/2000/12/21/09:29:58
--- Christopher Faylor <cgf AT redhat DOT com> wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 20, 2000 at 07:46:47PM -0800, Earnie Boyd wrote:
> >--- Christopher Faylor <cgf AT redhat DOT com> wrote:
> >> On Wed, Dec 20, 2000 at 04:48:41PM -0800, Sammartino, Ryan wrote:
> >> >If you look at a slightly larger slice of the code
> >> >than diff -c provides, you'll see that this whole thing
> >> >is wrapped in a "#ifdef GCC_IS_NATIVE" directive, which is
> >> >set near the top of default.c:
> >> >
> >> >/* Define GCC_IS_NATIVE if gcc is the native development environment on
> >> > your system (gcc/bison/flex vs cc/yacc/lex). */
> >> >/* CYGNUS LOCAL: or __CYGWIN__ */
> >> >#if defined(__MSDOS__) || defined(__CYGWIN__)
> >> >#define GCC_IS_NATIVE
> >> >#endif
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >so it does seem to be a "cygnus only" thing.
> >> Sorry, I don't understand your logic. If GCC_IS_NATIVE, surely g++
> >> either be the default c++ compiler or someone had a reason for not
> >> making that the case. AFAICT, you are modifying a section of make that
> >> is untouched by Cygnus/Red Hat. It's under the control of a define
> >> which can be set in non-Cygwin conditions. Roland McGrath obviously had
> >> a reason for doing this. If it was wrong, then the make maintainer
> >> (psmith AT gnu DOT org) should apprised of that fact.
> >And possibly the correct solution is to remove the `|| defined(__CYGWIN__)'
> >this instance. The probable case here is that back in version x a patch was
> >submitted that took effect in version y so that there is no Cygwin specific
> >change anymore. It would be a Cygwin package maintainers job to see that
> >code patches are submitted back to the source maintainer.
> If you are going to trust the cygwin package maintainer to make the
> right decision, then, his decision is that the GNU maintainer of the
> file in question should be notified. As far as the comment in the file
> is concerned, Cygwin is doing the right thing.
> I am not particularly bothered by the default CXX and I don't see any
> reason why I should be burdened with going to the effort of trying to
> champion a fix that I have little interest in. I don't have any special
> relationship with the make maintainer which would enable me to receive
> special consideration.
Gees, calm down Chris. I was speaking generalities for the benefit of the
archive. I also just realized that you consider yourself to be the Cygwin
package maintainer for make. I had asked this list if there was one, and
didn't see a direct answer. I has also asked the original poster if he would
like to become the Cygwin package maintain for make if there wasn't one already
and he agreed to do that and submitted a patch. If I were you I'd relinquish
it over to him and let him have at it and quit being hardnosed about the help.
mailto:earnie_boyd AT yahoo DOT com
--- <http://earniesystems.safeshopper.com> ---
--- Cygwin: POSIX on Windows <http://gw32.freeyellow.com/> ---
--- Minimalist GNU for Windows <http://www.mingw.org/> ---
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Shopping - Thousands of Stores. Millions of Products.
- Raw text -