Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2008 12:55:11 -0400
From: Christopher Faylor <cgf-use-the-mailinglist-please AT cygwin DOT com>
To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Subject: Re: Cygwin compiler and linker options
Message-ID: <20080822165511.GA13620@ednor.casa.cgf.cx>
Reply-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
References: <4126b3450808220352y12a25fddi444e3df3e1cb590a AT mail DOT gmail DOT com> <002f01c90456$1f080e50$4001a8c0 AT mycomputer> <5E25AF06EFB9EA4A87C19BC98F5C8753014F88E0 AT core-email DOT int DOT ascribe DOT com> <20080822151916 DOT GB13113 AT ednor DOT casa DOT cgf DOT cx> <004401c90479$07c2ca50$4001a8c0 AT mycomputer> <48AEED37 DOT 3030607 AT cygwin DOT com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <48AEED37.3030607@cygwin.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.16 (2007-06-09)
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 Fri, Aug 22, 2008 at 12:45:43PM -0400, Larry Hall (Cygwin) wrote:
> On 08/22/2008, John Emmas wrote:
>> Whilst I only signed up to this mailing list a couple of days ago, I can
>> naturally understand your frustration if this topic ( -mno-cygwin) is
>> dropping up over & over again and (apparently) being widely misunderstood.
>> What I don't accept is that you have any right to castigate people for not
>> understanding something which has clearly never been explained 
>> particularly
>> well.  Why am I arrogant enough to believe that it's never been explained
>> very well?
>
> I wouldn't take it too personally.  After all,
> <http://cygwin.com/acronyms/#WJM>. ;-)  The fact that you found one message
> in the email archives that didn't completely clarify for you what
> "-mno-cygwin" did doesn't say that much except that the post was not
> exhaustive in its description.  This switch's existence has a long
> history and was created for a particular use, to build 'setup.exe' back
> in the good old days.

Actually, Larry, that isn't true.  It was implemented by Geoff Noer back
in the old B20, one giant executable days, because it was his belief
that we'd be able to build applications (like gcc itself) without the
overhead of cygwin1.dll.

I hacked at it to make it work more reliably because Red Hat wanted it.
But it has never been 100% right and it really should just go away.

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/