Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help@sourceware.cygnus.com; run by ezmlm List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-owner@sources.redhat.com Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin@sources.redhat.com Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2001 17:27:18 -0500 From: Christopher Faylor To: cygwin@cygwin.com Subject: Re: make -mno-win32 the gcc default? Message-ID: <20010110172717.A5504@redhat.com> Reply-To: cygwin@cygwin.com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin@cygwin.com References: <20010110163107.A4979@redhat.com> <3A5CDA12.B7533F6C@ece.gatech.edu> <20010110170527.B21342@volta.certicom.com> <3A5CDEA3.CAB59B71@ece.gatech.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.11i In-Reply-To: <3A5CDEA3.CAB59B71@ece.gatech.edu>; from cwilson@ece.gatech.edu on Wed, Jan 10, 2001 at 05:13:55PM -0500 I didn't see this in the Cygwin mailing list but the CYGWIN environment variable controls the behavior of the Cygwin DLL. GCC is not the Cygwin DLL. This has nothing to do with "cygwin" or "make". So, Charles' suggestion is correct. cgf On Wed, Jan 10, 2001 at 05:13:55PM -0500, Charles Wilson wrote: >Sure. 'export CC="gcc -mwin32"' and 'export CXX="g++ -mwin32"' in your >.bashrc > > >Ashok Vadekar wrote: >> >> Could the switch be controlled by a $CYGWIN keyword? Then both modes could >> be considered default wrt. the command line. You would merely have to decide >> how you wanted cygwin (make, really) to behave. >> >> On Wed, Jan 10, 2001 at 04:54:26PM -0500, Charles Wilson wrote: >> > Christopher Faylor wrote: >> > > >> > > Earnie has been proposing this and I sort of like the idea but dread the >> > > potential hue and cry that could result. >> > > >> > >> > I also like the idea, but am terrified of the torrent of "It worked with >> > gcc-2.95.2 and cygwin beta 1.1 [sic]" complaints. Also I'm not sure >> > that all of "my" packages are _WIN32 clean. (For the most part, if they >> > compiled -- I was happy. I didn't look too closely beyond that. I know >> > that zlib and libpng are WIN32 clean 'cause I tested them with >> > -mno-win32. Dunno *for sure* about the rest). >> > >> > > So, is the hue and cry from the lack of WIN32 counterbalanced by potentially >> > > easier UNIX porting? >> > >> > Ummm....yyyyeeessss....I think???? >> > >> > --Chuck -- Want to unsubscribe from this list? Check out: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple