On 10 Nov 2001, at 5:46, Frank Heckenbach wrote:
The proper things to do, as far the "GCC philosophy" is concerned, is to install the matching GCC version. Period.
But the issue with respect to Cygwin is that there *is* no matching version. Cygwin doesn't provide a gcc-2.95.3, only a gcc-2.95.3-1, -2, etc. These versions include patches necessary to get GCC to build on Cygwin (I presume -- I haven't tried to build the FSF version of gcc- 2.95.3, but I can think of no other reason why Cygnus would want to maintain a version separate from the FSF version). So unless GPC is going to start providing patches to the Cygnus "dash versions" of the GCC sources, so that GPC can be built on gpc-2.95.3-x, there cannot be matching versions of GPC and GCC under Cygwin.
All of copying/linking the missing files, setting any environment variables, or using special options is "fixing a broken installation".
I would argue that it's much too restricted a view to call any installation that relies on environment variables or special options "broken." Surely if that's the GCC view, then why provide these variables and options at all? Is it broken if I install a cross-compiler and therefore need to use the "-b" option? Is it broken if I choose to use a more reasonable directory structure under Windows (where "/usr" has no meaning) and therefore need to use environment variables?
(Well, *I* certainly don't think so! :-)
-- Dave