Mail Archives: cygwin/2006/04/28/13:28:57
At Friday 2006-04-28 18:16 +0100, Dave Korn wrote:
>On 28 April 2006 18:04, Lloyd Wood wrote:
>
> > At Friday 2006-04-28 17:44 +0100, Dave Korn wrote:
> >> On 28 April 2006 17:07, Lloyd Wood wrote:
> >>
> >>> At Friday 2006-04-28 11:45 -0400, Williams, Gerald S \(Jerry\) wrote:
> >>>> If you need to find out what gcc is targeting, perhaps you should use
> >>>> "-dumpmachine" instead.
> >>>>
> >>>> $ gcc -dumpmachine
> >>>> i686-pc-cygwin
> >>>> $ gcc -dumpmachine -mno-cygwin
> >>>> i686-pc-mingw32
> >>>
> >>> Having identification behaviour dependent on a cygwin-specific flag
> >>> like this is.. insane.
> >>
> >> When you use -mno-cygwin, you are invoking A DIFFERENT
> >> compiler. Having the
> >> *same* identification for two different compilers that target different
> >> targets would be insane.
> >
> > But gee, that's exactly what gcc -v provides. A single identification
> > for both compilers.
>
> <smacks forehead> How many times, for crying out loud? The output of "gcc
>-v" IS NOT A FORMAL IDENTIFIER OF ANY SORT WHATSOEVER.
>
> > Why isn't there a gcc -v -mno-cygwin, then?
>
> Because it's still the same compiler package? Because nobody has
> ever cared
>about it because nobody has ever been daft enough to attempt to misuse the
>"gcc -v" output in this way before?
What, reading gcc -v's output using eyes and a screen is misuse?
> > It's all positively minging. (Chris: note the usage tip. First g
> > pronounced as j, so it's unlike any Chinese dynasties or Flash
> > Gordon's nemesis.)
>
> Actually it's minging to rhyme with singing, as anyone who has watched
>Little Britain or Catherine Tate's show should know.
Ah, that would be the BBC's "received pronunciation" take on the term.
L.
--
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 -