Mailing-List:	contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Subscribe:	<mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Archive:	<http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post:	<mailto:cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help:	<mailto:cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/#faqs>
Sender:	cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Delivered-To:	mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
From:	"Paul G." <pgarceau AT attbi DOT com>
Organization:	NewDawn Productions
To:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Date:	Mon, 13 Oct 2003 17:09:43 -0700
MIME-Version:	1.0
Subject:	Re: merging mingw and cygwin
Reply-to:	pgarceau AT attbi DOT com
Message-ID:	<3F8ADC57.8896.BD01D3@localhost>
In-reply-to:	<20031013190000.GB20245@mdssirds.comp.pge.com>
References:	<bmeida$gnh$1 AT sea DOT gmane DOT org>

On 13 Oct 2003 at 12:00, Edward Peschko wrote:
[snip]
> 
> 
> In other words, depending how you look at it, mingw is defining less
> crucial information, or cygwin is defining more junk. And sometimes
> they define the same stuff differently.
> 
> In any case, the toolsets are incompatible. And this is just the tip
> of the iceberg; If mingw's compiler is doing *anything* different from
> cygwin, and the users of large mingw projects are testing versus
> mingw, then the using of cygwin will result in binaries with annoying,
> hard-to-find bugs.

	Umm...that's not exactly true...I think I can speak from experience on this, being someone who develops 
using Cygwin (with and w/o -mno-cygwin), Mingw and Msys on a very regular basis (maintaining all of those ports for 
two or three, functionally different, APIs).

	Paul G.


--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports:       http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/

- Raw text -