X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
Message-ID: <45C2BF7D.9060206@users.sourceforge.net>
Date: Thu, 01 Feb 2007 22:35:09 -0600
From: "Yaakov (Cygwin Ports)" <yselkowitz AT users DOT sourceforge DOT net>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.9 (Windows/20061207)
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>
In-Reply-To: <20070131131337.GA17256@trixie.casa.cgf.cx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
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

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256

Christopher Faylor wrote:
> How about if we eliminate -mno-cygwin from future releases and either
> provide our own mingw cross-tools or wrap the offerings from mingw.org?
> This would mean that instead of saying 'gcc -mno-cygwin', you'd say:
> 'i686-mingw-gcc' which would, I know, make a few computers spontaneously
> self-destruct however, I really don't think that the -mno-cygwin belongs
> in gcc.  No other port of gcc has anything like this.

Pros:

1) Makes gcc package *much* easier to develop, encouraging faster
version bumps and perhaps more involvement in gcc development (I, for
one, would like to see a shared libstdc++, etc.).

2) Eliminate most new-user confusion.

3) Eliminate confusion on the part of software developers who think that
they can port to Cygwin with -mno-cygwin. (Go figure.  Somehow even
_developers_ can't figure that one out.)

4) Closer to behaviour on other platforms.

Cons:

There are a number of build systems that rely on -mno-cygwin; mozilla
and company come to mind as a major example.  (Then again, as much as I
like and use their software, their build system is IMO broken, and
that's the reason none of it is in Ports.)

Bottom line:

There's much to be gained on our part, and I don't see why we should be
required to keep this around because of these other cases, which are not
directly related to Cygwin itself.  Therefore IMHO I suggest:

* Scrapping -mno-cygwin.
* Making a separate --host=i686-pc-cygwin --target=i686-pc-mingw32
binutils and gcc.  (cross.cygclass has elementary support for this, but
I'm sure it needs more work.)
* Handling -mno-cygwin with a special error message directing the user
to use i686-pc-mingw32-gcc.


Yaakov
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (Cygwin)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFFwr99piWmPGlmQSMRCL5uAKDJDzymlzqW0zfP4QlNOlteutsfbwCghB+x
NvBsIwbBZd2OCQvl+GwI49o=
=r5nJ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--
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/