>Patches to binutils for speed improvement would be a more appropriate
>method of helping MinGW users.
I wish that would be possible, unfortunately it is not, unless you are
able to force scratching current binutils C implementation and replacing
it with C++ implementation using fast container libraries. Even if that
would be possible, somebody else would have to be responsible, right now
this is out of our focus (problem is solved for us).
>>Anyway, sorry for upsetting you. Next time I will use direct email.
>Do not SPAM the MinGW users privately either. If I hear that you do I will ask SF for help in stopping you.
Actually, I am barely reading this mailing list. Did not reacted to
anything in last 2 years. Just accidentaly noticed ask for help that
could be very likely satisfied.
Anyway, be sure that if I will feel to contact anybody on this mailing
list by email, I will simply do it. Ask for help whomever you want.
Sending email is not spaming.
>However, I do not go promoting my projects
>in others groups. It is really bad taste and causes the users
I am sorry, after spending time in our forum, I am just used to
different kind of attitude.
People are regulary suggesting other options on our forum. If somebody
suggest solution that he claims to be superior to ours, we carefuly
investigate it and if claims are proved, we try to adapt or improve ours
to match it. Actually, if you would come there and suggested some faster
compiler to ship with our package, you would be very welcome :) (We can
reimplement ld, but the compiler itself is a little bit too much work to