X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
Message-ID: <45C2BBF2.8DB029E6@dessent.net>
Date: Thu, 01 Feb 2007 20:20:02 -0800
From: Brian Dessent <brian AT dessent DOT net>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.79 [en] (Windows NT 5.0; U)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Subject: Re: Eliminating -mno-cygwin from gcc?
References: <20070131131337 DOT GA17256 AT trixie DOT casa DOT cgf DOT cx> 	 <20070201101648 DOT GD25688 AT ns1 DOT anodized DOT com> 	 <20070201103946 DOT GY27843 AT calimero DOT vinschen DOT de> 	 <20070201121552 DOT GB29751 AT trixie DOT casa DOT cgf DOT cx> 	 <20070201154711 DOT GZ27843 AT calimero DOT vinschen DOT de> 	 <ba40711f0702010814o4a3357a4yb0ff229e91dd32a4 AT mail DOT gmail DOT com> 	 <20070201162342 DOT GA17359 AT trixie DOT casa DOT cgf DOT cx> <195b3f1f0702011805o51e5d922ldce11e232058ebf7 AT mail DOT gmail DOT com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-IsSubscribed: yes
Reply-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Id: <cygwin.cygwin.com>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Archive: <http://sourceware.org/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post: <mailto:cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help: <mailto:cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs>
Sender: cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com

Wynfield Henman wrote:

> I for one am not adverse to your proposition of separating the ming

There's no such thing as "ming".  The name of the project is MinGW,
Minimalist GNU for Windows.

> (mno-cygwin) functionality into its own script or program.  This would

MinGW has been a separately maintained project for years.  This would be
nothing new.

> reduce cygwin gcc's complexity and make it easier to port to cygwin
> and hopefully, mean nearer gcc versions faster.  And by branching off
> the mno-cygwin, it can be delevoped and maintained at its own pace.

The functionality is ALREADY a separate project, maintained by other
people.  This is not what is being proposed.  All that is being proposed
is removing a shortcut/convenience flag that makes it easier to invoke
this other project's compiler from within Cygwin.  In fact you seem to
be showing the exact same kind of confusion that warranted this change
to begin with, namely that "gcc -mno-cygwin" has absolutely nothing to
do with Cygwin at all, and by using this flag you are effectively
invoking a whole other different compiler.  Thus removing the flag would
not affect the size or complexity of the Cygwin gcc at all, because none
of the functionality is even in the Cygwin gcc.

Brian

--
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/