Author oscarbenjamin
Recipients Jeffrey.Armstrong, Martin.Fiers, Pete.Forman, RubyTuesdayDONO, Seppo.Yli-Olli, alexis, cmcqueen1975, danmbox, doko, eric.araujo, geertj, jonforums, jwilk, loewis, oscarbenjamin, paul.moore, pje, rpetrov, rubenvb, santoso.wijaya, schmir, tarek
Date 2013-05-22.13:23:08
SpamBayes Score -1.0
Marked as misclassified Yes
Message-id <CAHVvXxRLcMKDnVa++XJCsjLJsCexcQ9PJq6HnohKpgccH4Dqzw@mail.gmail.com>
In-reply-to <CAHVvXxQR_10reJCOE3tP86P+a2HR3ZCLqRDGx-duut8fzzvPsA@mail.gmail.com>
Content
On 22 May 2013 13:40, Oscar Benjamin <report@bugs.python.org> wrote:
>
> However on further reflection I'm a little reluctant to force an error
> if I can't *prove* that the setup is broken.

After a little more reflection I realise that we could just do:

    if self.gcc_version < '4' or is_cygwingcc():
        # use -mno-cygwin

This way the cygwin/gcc-4 error is still emitted only if gcc emits it.
If the is_cygwingcc() function is conservative then there could be
cases where it mistakenly does not use -mno-cygwin but that would have
to be a broken cygwin/gcc-4 setup anyway.
History
Date User Action Args
2013-05-22 13:23:08oscarbenjaminsetrecipients: + oscarbenjamin, loewis, doko, paul.moore, pje, geertj, schmir, tarek, jwilk, eric.araujo, rpetrov, cmcqueen1975, rubenvb, santoso.wijaya, alexis, Seppo.Yli-Olli, jonforums, RubyTuesdayDONO, Jeffrey.Armstrong, danmbox, Martin.Fiers, Pete.Forman
2013-05-22 13:23:08oscarbenjaminlinkissue12641 messages
2013-05-22 13:23:08oscarbenjamincreate