X-Recipient: archive-cygwin AT delorie DOT com X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Message-ID: <48AF3265.9090106@lysator.liu.se> Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2008 23:40:53 +0200 From: Peter Rosin User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.16 (Windows/20080708) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Subject: Re: Cygwin compiler and linker options 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> In-Reply-To: <004401c90479$07c2ca50$4001a8c0@mycomputer> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm List-Id: 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 John Emmas skrev: > Guys, > > 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? Well, that seems self-evident if there's such a widespread > misunderstanding of the topic. Here's a link to the item that I read this > morning:- > > http://www.mail-archive.com/cygwin AT cygwin DOT com/msg49102.html > > Note that it states:- > " Cygwin compilers normally create Cygwin executables, ie. executables that > require the Cygwin DLL to run. But they don't have to. The compilers that > come with the Cygwin package (gcc, g77 etc.) accept an "-mno-cygwin" > switch. > This causes them to create executables that do *not* rely on the Cygwin > DLL" > > There's nothing at all there about cross-compilation and even if you read > the entire text, there's no indication that the writer himself had any > understanding that -mno-cygwin is applicable to cross-compilation. In > fact, > any developer would probably conclude from the above that -mno-cygwin is > some kind of switch that invokes static, rather than dynamic linking (thus > dispensing with the need for cygwin1.dll). That was my first assumption > and > I came to that conclusion because the writer's explanation was wholly > inadequate (which isn't actually MY fault). > > In fact, that's precisely WHY I was asking if there was a more > authoritative > resource. Wholly inadequate??? Just for the record, did you actually read the whole message? Sure, Mark did not mention the exact phrase "cross compiler" anywhere in that message, but surely you can't blame him for anticipating that you needed to know that? Some four years ago? I think he has it just about right. Here's an interesting quote from further down in that message that you apparently didn't read: "I don't think that inserting the Cygwin run-time code into the executable is a feasible route (from a technical or licensing standpoint) but avoiding the Cygwin run-time code via the -mno-cygwin switch surely is." I.e. Mark states pretty clearly that -mno-cygwin means that no cygwin code is involved in the resulting binaries. He also pretty clearly eliminates any static linking with the first half of that sentence (if run-time somehow implies dll in your world). Cheers, Peter (who does not know Mark) -- 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/