From: james_osburn AT e-stamp DOT com (James Osburn) Subject: RE: cygwin.dll 17 Jan 1997 17:22:07 -0800 Approved: cygnus DOT gnu-win32 AT cygnus DOT com Distribution: cygnus Message-ID: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Original-To: "'jqb AT netcom DOT com'" Original-Cc: "'gnu-win32 AT cygnus DOT com'" X-Mailer: Microsoft Exchange Server Internet Mail Connector Version 4.0.993.5 Original-Sender: owner-gnu-win32 AT cygnus DOT com >---------- >From: Jim Balter[SMTP:jqb AT netcom DOT com] >Sent: Friday, January 17, 1997 1:08 PM >To: James Osburn >Cc: 'gnu-win32 AT cygnus DOT com' >Subject: Re: cygwin.dll > >James Osburn wrote: >> >> My two bits on the cygwin.dll and cygnus in general. >> >> First the cygwin.dll is to large It should not >> contain the unix to win32 interface. > >Since the cygwin C library is UNIX code that depends upon UNIX >semantics, if cygwin.dll didn't contain the unix to win32 interface, >it *wouldn't work*. If you want to separate out the libc and libm >routines into separate DLLs, that can be done; if you want to pare >down the cygwin routines, that can be done. As has been posted here >many times now, Colin Peters has done some of this; go check out his >work. > >> Second, there should >> be a facility to compile statically and to separate the >> C runtime and C++ runtimes into seperate dlls and statically >> linkable libs. > >libg.a is a statically linkable lib. > >> The task of porting all the gnu unix to win32 >> via the gcc should be dropped. It poisons an otherwise >> very good idea: gcc for win32. > >I cannot fathom the thinking that says that the cygwin project, >which is a project to port a unix environment to Windows, should >drop porting a unix environment to Windows. If *you* want just gcc >for Windows, and you think it should be divorced from the unix >library and the GNU configure facility and all the rest, then why don't >*you* go out and write it? The cygnus people are a *GNU* support >organization; cygwin, as I understand it, was envisioned as a port >of the *GNU* utilities to Windows. And many of us have benefited from >it. The only poison I see here is the suggestion that something that >many other people want should be dropped because you don't happen >to want it. > >If you want a more minimal system go check out Colin Peters' work. >Maybe you could even lend him a hand. > >You are correct I dont really care about the port of the GNU UNIX tools to >win32. >(If a port exists make it a direct port not relying on the compiler) >I did check out Colin Peters and this is exactly what I am looking for. About >your admonision to write my own. Ok maybe so I had feared that would be the case. And to helping Colin Peter? Why not. I have written him and asked what >I could do. > >James Osburn > - For help on using this list, send a message to "gnu-win32-request AT cygnus DOT com" with one line of text: "help".