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
X-Apparently-From: <earnie?boyd AT yahoo DOT com>
Message-ID: <3AA795F2.F82BDBD8@yahoo.com>
Date: Thu, 08 Mar 2001 09:23:46 -0500
From: Earnie Boyd <earnie_boyd AT yahoo DOT com>
Reply-To: Earnie Boyd <autoconf AT gnu DOT org>, Earnie Boyd <cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.76 [en] (WinNT; U)
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Alexandre Oliva <oliva AT lsd DOT ic DOT unicamp DOT br>
CC: "Charles S. Wilson" <cwilson AT ece DOT gatech DOT edu>,
        Christopher Faylor <cgf AT redhat DOT com>, autoconf AT gnu DOT org,
        cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Subject: Re: Detecting the need for -mwin32 in newer cygwin gcc's
References: <20010307161214 DOT A20717 AT redhat DOT com>
		<orn1axvuu4 DOT fsf AT guarana DOT lsd DOT ic DOT unicamp DOT br>
		<3AA74730 DOT D4C575FC AT ece DOT gatech DOT edu> <ork860sfhi DOT fsf AT guarana DOT lsd DOT ic DOT unicamp DOT br>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> 
> On Mar  8, 2001, "Charles S. Wilson" <cwilson AT ece DOT gatech DOT edu> wrote:
> 
> > So, by absorbing AC_PROG_GCC_USES_MWIN32, are you helping the GPL half,
> > or the proprietary half?
> 
> > By refusing to absorb it, are you hurting the proprietary half, or the
> > GPL half?
> 
> > Both, of course.
> 
> > Which is more important?
> 
> Autoconf is about portability across multiple platforms.  If you
> depend on MS-Windows proprietary libraries, there's not much hope for
> portability.  So, why use autoconf, in the first place?
> 
> If you don't depend on MS-Windows proprietary libraries, then there's
> no reason for -mwin32.
> 
> Or am I missing something about the effects of this new -mwin32 flag?
> 

I don't think you're missing a thing and I agree with you.  It doesn't
belong in autocoonf.  This is a platform dependent issue that should be
handled in the platform dependent coding of Makefile.in and/or
configure.in.  The application maintainer/porter knows that the -mwin32
switch is needed and can make certain it gets added to CC or CFLAGS and
CXXFLAGS under the appropriate conditions.

I can't even understand how such a macro fits Autoconf.  I may need it
and I may not need it but Autoconf can't determine my needs it can only
determine what I have.

Earnie.

_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com


--
Want to unsubscribe from this list?
Check out: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple