X-Spam-Check-By:	sourceware.org
To:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
From:	Matthew Woehlke <mw_triad AT users DOT sourceforge DOT net>
Subject:	Re: Eliminating -mno-cygwin from gcc.
Date:	Mon, 05 Feb 2007 12:52:09 -0600
Lines:	14
Message-ID:	<eq7ucq$no9$1@sea.gmane.org>
References:	<020d01c748b4$62d8b170$2e08a8c0 AT CAM DOT ARTIMI DOT COM> <45C69F2F DOT 2060300 AT users DOT sourceforge DOT net>
Mime-Version:	1.0
User-Agent:	Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.8.0.9) Gecko/20061206 Thunderbird/1.5.0.9 Mnenhy/0.7.4.0
In-Reply-To:	<45C69F2F.2060300@users.sourceforge.net>
X-IsSubscribed:	yes
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

Yaakov (Cygwin Ports) wrote:
> Will using shell wrappers noticably slow down calls to gcc?  Or should
> we just start explicitly calling i686-pc-cygwin-gcc instead?  (FWIW
> Gentoo does the equivalent of the latter.)

Um. That's a good question. I think the answer to your first question is 
"yes", and it will *also* hurt people not using the cross compiler. 
Therefore I think this might not be a good solution.

The answer to your second question is also "yes" I believe. :-)

-- 
Matthew
This message is non-smoking


--
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 -