X-Spam-Check-By:	sourceware.org
Date:	Wed, 31 Jan 2007 12:51:24 -0500
From:	Christopher Faylor <cgf-use-the-mailinglist-please AT cygwin DOT com>
To:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Subject:	Re: Eliminating -mno-cygwin from gcc?
Message-ID:	<20070131175124.GA23286@trixie.casa.cgf.cx>
Reply-To:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
References:	<20070131131337 DOT GA17256 AT trixie DOT casa DOT cgf DOT cx> <4C89134832705D4D85A6CD2EBF38AE0FC59E55 AT PAUMAILU03 DOT ags DOT agere DOT com>
Mime-Version:	1.0
In-Reply-To:	<4C89134832705D4D85A6CD2EBF38AE0FC59E55@PAUMAILU03.ags.agere.com>
User-Agent:	Mutt/1.5.11
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 Wed, Jan 31, 2007 at 12:46:28PM -0500, Williams, Gerald S (Jerry) wrote:
>Christopher Faylor wrote:
>> When I was maintaining cygwin's gcc, I often thought about eliminating
>> -mno-cygwin and just providing a pure mingw cross compiler in the
>> distribution.
>
>I completely agree. Anybody depending on -mno-cygwin can create
>their own shell wrapper. I personally don't care so much about a
>deprecation period, as long as it explodes noisily and points me
>in the right direction three years from now when I try to run an
>old build script that happens to use it.
>
>Big projects really shouldn't be using -mno-cygwin, anyway--the
>preferred way to do it is to install MinGW compilers and either
>use MSYS or change your Cygwin path to put MinGW's tools first.
>
>How complete of a cross chain were you thinking about supporting?  I
>only installed the compilers and my MinGW bin contains over 60 unique
>executables--that could mean a fair number of i686-mingw-* programs
>created (consider GNAT for example).

I just thought that something which provides similar functionality to
what is available now would be required.  That means MinGW versions of
gcc and binutils.

cgf

--
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 -