X-Recipient: archive-cygwin@delorie.com
X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-3.6 required=5.0 	tests=BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS
X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
To: cygwin@cygwin.com
From: Eric Backus <eric_backus@agilent.com>
Subject:  Re: PING: Deprecation of -mno-cygwin.
Date: Mon, 23 Mar 2009 17:50:58 +0000 (UTC)
Lines: 34
Message-ID:  <loom.20090323T174051-563@post.gmane.org>
References:  <49C6DADF.90305@gmail.com> <20090323093234.GK9322@calimero.vinschen.de> <49C78FA2.4010209@users.sourceforge.net> <alpine.LRH.0.9999.0903230939480.20344@honker.vgersoft.com> <49C794CB.3010305@gmail.com> <alpine.LRH.0.9999.0903230956520.21860@honker.vgersoft.com> <49C79B0B.9010200@sbcglobal.net> <20090323142702.GB16626@ednor.casa.cgf.cx>
Mime-Version:  1.0
Content-Type:  text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding:  7bit
User-Agent: Loom/3.14 (http://gmane.org/)
X-IsSubscribed: yes
Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help@cygwin.com; run by ezmlm
List-Id: <cygwin.cygwin.com>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:cygwin-subscribe@cygwin.com>
List-Archive: <http://sourceware.org/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post: <mailto:cygwin@cygwin.com>
List-Help: <mailto:cygwin-help@cygwin.com>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs>
Sender: cygwin-owner@cygwin.com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin@cygwin.com
Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin@cygwin.com

Christopher Faylor <cgf-use-the-mailinglist-please <at> cygwin.com> writes:
> On Mon, Mar 23, 2009 at 02:22:03PM +0000, Greg Chicares wrote:
> >On 2009-03-23 14:00Z, Steve Thompson wrote:
> >> 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.
> >> 
> >> 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?
> >
> >The recommended alternative is the forthcoming mingw cross-compiler.
> >
> >I think Yaakov's right to recommend a clean break with the past: ...
> >which would put all the confusion to rest.
> 
> Big DITTO.  As Dave said, the option is already gone...

Moving to a better solution is great!  But isn't it customary to have some 
overlap period where the deprecated solution still works (but with ugly 
warnings) while the new solution is available?

I've used -mno-cygwin for many years, quite successfully, with no problems 
from headers or libraries.  I'm willing to upgrade all my Makefiles, but it 
would be nice to avoid a period where my Makefiles are broken and the new 
solution is not yet available.
-- 
Eric Backus



--
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/