X-Recipient: archive-cygwin AT delorie DOT com
X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
Date: Mon, 23 Mar 2009 10:27:02 -0400
From: Christopher Faylor <cgf-use-the-mailinglist-please AT cygwin DOT com>
To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Subject: Re: PING: Deprecation of -mno-cygwin.
Message-ID: <20090323142702.GB16626@ednor.casa.cgf.cx>
Reply-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
References: <49C6DADF DOT 90305 AT gmail DOT com> <20090323093234 DOT GK9322 AT calimero DOT vinschen DOT de> <49C78FA2 DOT 4010209 AT users DOT sourceforge DOT net> <alpine DOT LRH DOT 0 DOT 9999 DOT 0903230939480 DOT 20344 AT honker DOT vgersoft DOT com> <49C794CB DOT 3010305 AT gmail DOT com> <alpine DOT LRH DOT 0 DOT 9999 DOT 0903230956520 DOT 21860 AT honker DOT vgersoft DOT com> <49C79B0B DOT 9010200 AT sbcglobal DOT net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <49C79B0B.9010200@sbcglobal.net>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.16 (2007-06-09)
Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <cygwin.cygwin.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:cygwin-unsubscribe-archive-cygwin=delorie DOT com AT cygwin DOT 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

On Mon, Mar 23, 2009 at 02:22:03PM +0000, Greg Chicares wrote:
>On 2009-03-23 14:00Z, Steve Thompson wrote:
>> On Mon, 23 Mar 2009, Dave Korn wrote:
>> 
>>>  It's a bit of a kludge compared to having a real honest-to-god
>>> cross-compiler.  It's never worked entirely right in terms of keeping cygwin
>>> and mingw headers and libs completely separate.  A full-blown mingw
>>> cross-compiler won't cost that much in terms of disk space and the reliability
>>> and correctness improvements will be worth it.
>> 
>> That's very interesting. I've been using -mno-cygwin for several years, 
>> having done many many thousands of compiles and links using it, and I have 
>> never had a problem with either headers or libraries! Is there a 
>> recommended alternative?
>
>The recommended alternative is the forthcoming mingw cross-compiler.
>
>I think Yaakov's right to recommend a clean break with the past:
>
>| >   $ i686-pc-cygwin-gcc -mno-cygwin	<- Spits out a warning
>|
>| Please, NO!  -mno-cygwin needs to go away already.
>
>which would put all the confusion to rest. If the i386-pc-mingw32
>true cross-compiler is gcc-4.x, then much code will have to be
>changed anyway because of stricter diagnostics; it's actually
>kinder IMO to force makefiles to change at the same time, by
>treating -m[no-]cygwin as an error.

Big DITTO.  As Dave said, the option is already gone so I don't think we
need to rehash what to do.

I do think it makes sense to add a "(deprecated)" to any text which
currently discusses the option though.

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/