X-Spam-Check-By:	sourceware.org
From:	"Dave Korn" <dave DOT korn AT artimi DOT com>
To:	<cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
References:	<20070131131337 DOT GA17256 AT trixie DOT casa DOT cgf DOT cx> <45C0971E DOT 4080305 AT byu DOT net> <20070131132700 DOT GA3478 AT implementation DOT labri DOT fr> <20070131133102 DOT GA17405 AT trixie DOT casa DOT cgf DOT cx> <20070131134842 DOT GU27843 AT calimero DOT vinschen DOT de>
Subject:	RE: Eliminating -mno-cygwin from gcc?
Date:	Wed, 31 Jan 2007 14:52:42 -0000
Message-ID:	<050901c74547$76f60e20$2e08a8c0@CAM.ARTIMI.COM>
MIME-Version:	1.0
X-Mailer:	Microsoft Office Outlook 11
In-Reply-To:	<20070131134842.GU27843@calimero.vinschen.de>
Mailing-List:	contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Id:	<cygwin.cygwin.com>
List-Unsubscribe:	<mailto:cygwin-unsubscribe-archive-cygwin=delorie DOT com AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Subscribe:	<mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Archive:	<http://sourceware.org/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post:	<mailto:cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help:	<mailto:cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sourceware.org/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

On 31 January 2007 13:49, Corinna Vinschen wrote:

[yep, ntsec, haven't forgotten. sorry for slowness!]

> On Jan 31 08:31, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>> On Wed, Jan 31, 2007 at 02:27:00PM +0100, Samuel Thibault wrote:
>>> Eric Blake, le Wed 31 Jan 2007 06:18:22 -0700, a ?crit :
>>>> I would much rather call the cross-compiler i686-mingw-gcc than the
>>>> current name of 'gcc -mno-cygwin'.
>>> 
>>> Same for me.
>> 
>> Thinking about this some more, it seems like we'd need a real
>> cygwin-based mingw cross compiler rather than a wrapped mingw compiler
>> since otherwise there would be path and signal issues.
> 
> While I agree with the general idea, I have to add the obligatory hint
> that there are many projects out there which build environment requires
> `gcc -mno-cygwin' to work.  All of them will break with at least 50% of
> the lost user base asking on the Cygwin list for help.
> 
> So I'm wondering if we are not better off with sticking to the
> `gcc -mno-cygwin' interface, regardless how this is implemented under
> the hood.


  My preference would be to keep it and fix the one-or-two minor bugs in the
way it sets up the include/lib search paths.


    cheers,
      DaveK
-- 
Can't think of a witty .sigline today....


--
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 -