Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2007 07:15:53 -0500
From: Christopher Faylor <cgf-use-the-mailinglist-please AT cygwin DOT com>
To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Subject: Re: Eliminating -mno-cygwin from gcc?
Message-ID: <20070202121553.GA13467@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> <45C2BF7D DOT 9060206 AT users DOT sourceforge DOT net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <45C2BF7D.9060206@users.sourceforge.net>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.11
Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Sender: cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com

On Thu, Feb 01, 2007 at 10:35:09PM -0600, Yaakov (Cygwin Ports) wrote:
>-----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.).

I'm not sure that it makes the gcc package that much easier to develop
since, presumably, we'd be adding a new gcc mingw package which would
have to be kept in step with the cygwin gcc.

>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.)

Don't forget that Cygwin itself uses it.  That would require a change in
Cygwin's build, which I am, of course, willing to do.

Also, in case it isn't clear, I'm one of the GNU maintainers for the Windows
version of gcc, so I'm not making this suggestion lightly.

(And, yes, I have talked with Dave Korn about this)

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/