From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,
	REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Thread: 103376,8da181ade72859cf
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Path: 
 g2news1.google.com!news2.google.com!proxad.net!news.cs.univ-paris8.fr!feeder.news.heanet.ie!feed4.jnfs.ja.net!feed3.jnfs.ja.net!jnfs.ja.net!south.jnrs.ja.net!not-for-mail
From: Dr Steve Sangwine <sjs@essex.ac.uk>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Cygwin and gcc-ada 3.4.1 (was Re: timeouts)
Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2004 16:05:16 +0100
Organization: University of Essex
Message-ID: <lfdbk0hobm7qqlsgvmrcjck516nbpahuk2@4ax.com>
References: <sa4smakuhzq.fsf@snoopy.apana.org.au>
 <q%SUc.27261$9Y6.4809@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>
 <sa48ycbvn58.fsf@snoopy.apana.org.au>
 <y27Vc.7035$3O3.483@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>
 <sa4pt5jre7c.fsf@snoopy.apana.org.au>
 <ST6Wc.30536$9Y6.10706@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>
 <sa4hdqoev93.fsf@snoopy.apana.org.au> <2p8gqbFicla4U1@uni-berlin.de>
Reply-To: sjs@essex.ac.uk
NNTP-Posting-Host: hyper4.essex.ac.uk
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Trace: south.jnrs.ja.net 1095087918 24494 155.245.64.2 (13 Sep 2004 15:05:18
 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: usenet@south.jnrs.ja.net
NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2004 15:05:18 +0000 (UTC)
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 2.0/32.652
Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:3684
Date: 2004-09-13T16:05:16+01:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On Fri, 27 Aug 2004 12:31:52 +0200, Jano <notelacreas@porfavor.no>
wrote:

>I have a doubt after all this talk about the convenience of migrating to 
>3.4.1:
>
>* I see the Mingw is in candidate status (may be good enough).

I have been using MinGW/gcc 3.4.1 for some time, and not found any
problems with it (and I did find problems with earlier releases of
gcc 3).


>
>* If I'd choose to use the cygwin one, would the executables produced 
>require the cygwin1.dll? (I suppose so, this is my doubt).

I think so, the advantage of MinGW is that it produces code that will
run without any special DLLs.
>
>Would you say that is definitely preferable to use 3.4.1 over a patched 
>3.15p?

I would say yes, but I may not have exercised it enough and there is a
possibility you will hit a problem in 3.4.1 that is not present in
3.15p.

Steve Sangwine

>
>Thanks in advance,
>
>A. Mosteo.