Mail Archives: cygwin/2007/02/01/23:20:24
Wynfield Henman wrote:
> I for one am not adverse to your proposition of separating the ming
There's no such thing as "ming". The name of the project is MinGW,
Minimalist GNU for Windows.
> (mno-cygwin) functionality into its own script or program. This would
MinGW has been a separately maintained project for years. This would be
nothing new.
> reduce cygwin gcc's complexity and make it easier to port to cygwin
> and hopefully, mean nearer gcc versions faster. And by branching off
> the mno-cygwin, it can be delevoped and maintained at its own pace.
The functionality is ALREADY a separate project, maintained by other
people. This is not what is being proposed. All that is being proposed
is removing a shortcut/convenience flag that makes it easier to invoke
this other project's compiler from within Cygwin. In fact you seem to
be showing the exact same kind of confusion that warranted this change
to begin with, namely that "gcc -mno-cygwin" has absolutely nothing to
do with Cygwin at all, and by using this flag you are effectively
invoking a whole other different compiler. Thus removing the flag would
not affect the size or complexity of the Cygwin gcc at all, because none
of the functionality is even in the Cygwin gcc.
Brian
--
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 -