Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Subscribe: <mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>
List-Archive: <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post: <mailto:cygwin AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>
List-Help: <mailto:cygwin-help AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/#faqs>
Sender: cygwin-owner AT sources DOT redhat DOT com
Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin AT sources DOT redhat DOT com
Message-ID: <17B78BDF120BD411B70100500422FC6309E131@IIS000>
From: Bernard Dautrevaux <Dautrevaux AT microprocess DOT com>
To: "'Fergus Henderson'" <fjh AT cs DOT mu DOT oz DOT au>,
        Earnie Boyd
	 <earnie_boyd AT yahoo DOT com>
Cc: cygwin AT sources DOT redhat DOT com
Subject: RE: Does Cygwin's `-mno-cygwin' need Mingw?
Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2000 17:15:39 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21)
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Fergus Henderson [mailto:fjh AT cs DOT mu DOT oz DOT au]
> Sent: Wednesday, October 18, 2000 4:44 PM
> To: Earnie Boyd
> Cc: cygwin AT sources DOT redhat DOT com
> Subject: Re: Does Cygwin's `-mno-cygwin' need Mingw?
> 
> 
> On 16-Oct-2000, Earnie Boyd <earnie_boyd AT yahoo DOT com> wrote:
> > --- Chris Faylor <cgf AT cygnus DOT com> wrote:
> > > On Mon, Oct 16, 2000 at 09:51:11AM -0700, Earnie Boyd wrote:
> > > >
> > > >The -mno-cygwin switch of the Cygwin product is not 
> considered MinGW by
> > > >the MinGW development team.  MinGW has it's own set of 
> GCC/binutils
> > > >tools.  We are currently in the process of preparing a 
> more upto date
> > > >package.
> 
> OK, I have some follow-up questions:
> 
> 	- Is there much difference between the two?
> 
> 	- Is there an official name for the `-mno-cygwin' 
> option of Cygwin?
> 	  "The -mno-cygwin switch of the Cygwin product" is a bit wordy.
> 	  (Perhaps it should be called "Clayton's Cygwin" ;-)
> 	
> 	- Cygwin and "Cygwin -mno-cygwin" are sufficiently 
> different that
> 	  I think it would make sense for them to have 
> different autoconf
> 	  canonical system names -- after all, Mingw has a 
> different name,
> 	  and "Cygwin -mno-cygwin" is closer to Mingw than to Cygwin.
> 	  Currently autoconf seems to configure as "i*86-pc-cygwin",
> 	  even if you invoke configure as "CC='gcc -mno-cygwin' 
> ./configure".
> 	  Should it configure report the host system type as 
> "i*86-pc-mingw"
> 	  in that situation?  Or should we invent a new name for that?
> 	  If so, what should it be?
> 

In doing what you describe you're in fact using a cross-compiler from cygwin
to Win32; as everytime you want to use a cross-compielr to build a program,
you should specify the host system to configure (and usually also the host
system, as old configure may think that build == host if you only supply the
host).

You then have to 
	CC="gcc -mno-cygwin" ./configure --build=`config.guess`
--host=ix86-unknown-mingw32

Here I'm assuming mingw32 is quite close to what you get with the
-mno-cygwin option, at least to the point of the configured system to work
nice.

Of course we could have an ix86-unknown-nocygwin canonical host name, but I
think this is a bit confusing, and using mingw32 in this context seems quite
OK.

Regards,

	Bernard

--------------------------------------------
Bernard Dautrevaux
Microprocess Ingenierie
97 bis, rue de Colombes
92400 COURBEVOIE
FRANCE
Tel:	+33 (0) 1 47 68 80 80
Fax:	+33 (0) 1 47 88 97 85
e-mail:	dautrevaux AT microprocess DOT com
		b DOT dautrevaux AT usa DOT net
-------------------------------------------- 

--
Want to unsubscribe from this list?
Send a message to cygwin-unsubscribe AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com