Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com; run by ezmlm List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-owner AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com Message-ID: <392D4E92.340B63D2@ece.gatech.edu> Date: Thu, 25 May 2000 12:02:26 -0400 From: Charles Wilson X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (X11; U; SunOS 5.7 sun4u) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Parker, Ron" CC: Cosmin Truta , Jason Tishler , cygwin AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com Subject: Re: CygUtils Version of zip (and Symlinks) References: <200005251558 DOT LAA05624 AT mail DOT ee DOT gatech DOT edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit "Parker, Ron" wrote: > > > > When you get right down to it, cygwin is NOT windows. It > > does everything > > > it can to make windows look like Unix, so that apps can run > > *as if they > > > were on unix* with little or no changes. So, by that logic, > > > cygwin-zip/unzip =should= be built as unix-ish apps, not windows-ish > > > ones. > > > > Maybe you are right. > > I personally look at gcc as a free alternative for a good > > Win32 compiler, > > but I agree that cygwin is a "Unix on Win" and maybe most of > > the people > > look at it that way. > > ISTM that the right behavior would be for cygwin to build a UNIX-ish (un)zip > and for mingw to build a Windows style program. As already pointed out > cygwin should be thought of as "Unix on Win" and IMO mingw should be thought > of as "as a free alternative for a good Win32 compiler". Just to respond to a small part of this post: mingw == 'free alternative for a good Win32 compiler' cygwin-gcc -mno-cygwin == 'another free alternative for a good Win32 compiler' cygwin-gcc -mno-cygwin != mingw I'm not sure how this affects your argument below, but the difference between cygwin-gcc -mno-cygwin and mingw does need to be considered. --Chuck > > I realize that cygwin and mingw are both supported by the same compiler, but > supplying -mno-cygwin causes gcc to switch from cygwin to mingw behavior and > __MINGW32__ becomes defined. > > This may be more a question for cygwin-developers, but I hate crossposts and > know most readers of that list at least review this one. So, wouldn't it be > appropriate when compiling without -mno-cygwin for the specs file to define > "unix", "UNIX" and similar "standard" defines? They seem to be checked for > in newlib, zlib, X11, and many other sources? > > Yes I know I can make this change in my local sources, but I prefer to work > with standard sources and now seemed a good time to bring it up. I have > been wondering about it for some time. -- Want to unsubscribe from this list? Send a message to cygwin-unsubscribe AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com