???

[Joerg Arndt]

* 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"
attitude.

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,
see below...


> 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.


>  As
> 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.