arndt at jjj.de
Mon Jun 2 09:48:50 CEST 2008
* NightStrike <nightstrike at gmail.com> [Jun 02. 2008 16:17]:
> Replying off-list
Well, you didn't.
> You seem to be understanding of what's going on,
Could you kindly make explicit what "is going on"?
> and much less
> "Anti-Windows" than most,
Which part in
<cite Hans Aberg>
GNU is in the first hand about POSIX, which nowadays is a subset of
UNIX; all else are extras.
So writers of OSs only have to make sure they are POSIX compliant,
and GNU code should work.
</cite Hans Aberg>
do you fail to understand?
Speaking for myself, I assume to have the freedom not to code for the
Windows O/S. Correct me if I am wrong. In fact, the last product of
Microsoft I used was some DOS 5.x (dunno for sure). I have not
touched DOS/Windows box since then. I use another O/S that fits my
needs. I do not see how this could possibly be a "Anti-Windows"
You may have noticed that I have attempted to get pertinent
information from your side nevertheless. I do not see a
reasonable attempt from your side to address my questions.
Instead you keep insinuating, implying, and suggesting things,
> so I thought I'd email you. Right now, the
> "Gcc on Win64" team consists of myself, and Kai (Kai does 99.999% of
> the coding work). What can we do to get to a viable solution for GCC
> on this platform? How can we work with Torbjorn to get GMP fixed?
***Again*** a suggestion the GMP is "broken".
Could you kindly explain what you consider broken?
Note: the absence of a W64 branch does not mean GMP is broken.
> I understand it, he has the final say on everything, which means that
> he controls what platforms GMP (and by extension, MPFR, and then GCC)
> run on.
... so it seems ;-)
Now, pretty please, facts and no more suggestions whatsoever.
More information about the gmp-discuss