On 2007-06-03 at 17:42:43 [+0200], Urias McCullough <umccullough@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 6/3/07, Ingo Weinhold <bonefish@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > 3.4.4 seems a little old. Didn't cygwin usually use pretty much bleeding > > edge > > versions? > > Unfortunately, no - that's where cygwin is stuck at the moment. I can > optionally use the 3.4.3 package as well. I read somewhere that gcc > 4.x is not compatible with mingw/cygwin - and apparently nobody has > been in a hurry to fix this. I don't know the details. > > Is this going to be an issue? The code seems to have built without > errors - I had assumed this was only a linking issue. Do you think > maybe gcc 3.4.4 has generated bad objects that won't link? No, I wasn't really thinking anything in particular. I was just wondering, why the gcc version was that old. I wouldn't expect any serious compilation problems, but I also wouldn't rule out that newer gcc/binutils versions wouldn't have that problem or at least print a helpful error message. CU, Ingo