X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2007 08:31:02 -0500 From: Christopher Faylor To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Subject: Re: Eliminating -mno-cygwin from gcc? Message-ID: <20070131133102.GA17405@trixie.casa.cgf.cx> Reply-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com References: <20070131131337 DOT GA17256 AT trixie DOT casa DOT cgf DOT cx> <45C0971E DOT 4080305 AT byu DOT net> <20070131132700 DOT GA3478 AT implementation DOT labri DOT fr> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20070131132700.GA3478@implementation.labri.fr> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.11 Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: 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 On Wed, Jan 31, 2007 at 02:27:00PM +0100, Samuel Thibault wrote: >Eric Blake, le Wed 31 Jan 2007 06:18:22 -0700, a ?crit : >> I would much rather call the cross-compiler i686-mingw-gcc than the >> current name of 'gcc -mno-cygwin'. > >Same for me. Thinking about this some more, it seems like we'd need a real cygwin-based mingw cross compiler rather than a wrapped mingw compiler since otherwise there would be path and signal issues. And, as long as we're talking about cross-compilers, a cygwin -> linux cross compiler would probably be nice, too. cgf -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/