X-Recipient: archive-cygwin@delorie.com X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Date: Mon, 23 Mar 2009 10:00:09 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Thompson To: cygwin@cygwin.com Subject: Re: PING: Deprecation of -mno-cygwin. In-Reply-To: <49C794CB.3010305@gmail.com> Message-ID: References: <49C6DADF.90305@gmail.com> <20090323093234.GK9322@calimero.vinschen.de> <49C78FA2.4010209@users.sourceforge.net> <49C794CB.3010305@gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help@cygwin.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-owner@cygwin.com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin@cygwin.com Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin@cygwin.com On Mon, 23 Mar 2009, Dave Korn wrote: > It's a bit of a kludge compared to having a real honest-to-god > cross-compiler. It's never worked entirely right in terms of keeping cygwin > and mingw headers and libs completely separate. A full-blown mingw > cross-compiler won't cost that much in terms of disk space and the reliability > and correctness improvements will be worth it. That's very interesting. I've been using -mno-cygwin for several years, having done many many thousands of compiles and links using it, and I have never had a problem with either headers or libraries! Is there a recommended alternative? Steve -- 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/