Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Date: Sun, 21 Jul 2002 19:19:49 -0400 From: Christopher Faylor To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Subject: Re: g++ (v.3.1.1-4) -mno-cygwin with a hello world sample crashes oddly Message-ID: <20020721231949.GB4030@redhat.com> Reply-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com References: <1027273720 DOT 3d3af3f88166e AT www DOT mailshell DOT com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1027273720.3d3af3f88166e@www.mailshell.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.23.1i On Sun, Jul 21, 2002 at 10:48:40AM -0700, news AT garydjones DOT mailshell DOT com wrote: >On 21 Jul 2002, Christopher Faylor wrote: > >> On Sun, Jul 21, 2002 at 08:00:48AM -0700, Randall R Schulz >> wrote: > >>>When you use the "-c" option, you suppress the whole linking >>>phase. The output, regardless of its extension, is not a >>>binary executable >[snip] >> Wow, all of this traffic and Randall is the first, AFAICT, >> to notice that someone was using the -c option incorrectly. >> When I did my test case, I actually correctly did not use >> the -c option to try to create an executable and I never >> noticed the cockpit error. > >The reason being that you were trying to reproduce a reported problem >and failed to faithfully reproduce the conditions described. Do you have a fun time stating the obvious? >> There are something on the order of 22 messages in this >> thread and it looks like only one person actually noticed >> the obvious problem. > >So obvious that you didn't comment on it in your original response? >Since yours was the first reply, you could have saved 20 of those >messages by doing so. I DIDN'T NOTICE the -c. What part of "I never noticed the cockpit error" did you have problems with? I was commending Randall on his insight. It didn't occur to me that this would be taken as YA reason to continue this dead thread. Just to make it clear: I was no different than anyone else here, apparently. Maybe I was missing some confusion from people who thought that executing an object file should have created an obvious error. However, I was taking the bug report as something specifically wrong with gcc 3.1.1 when it was just cygwin + gcc working as it always has. cgf -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Bug reporting: http://cygwin.com/bugs.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/