Date: Wed, 8 Feb 2012 11:35:05 -0500
From: Christopher Faylor <cgf-use-the-mailinglist-please AT cygwin DOT com>
To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Subject: Re: Documentation on -mno-cygwin Accuracy
Message-ID: <20120208163505.GK18167@ednor.casa.cgf.cx>
Reply-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
References: <4F315473 DOT 8070106 AT gmail DOT com> <jgrtto$7g5$1 AT dough DOT gmane DOT org> <4F3180B1 DOT 7090007 AT aol DOT com> <jgs0ff$t8j$1 AT dough DOT gmane DOT org> <20120207211251 DOT GF32219 AT calimero DOT vinschen DOT de> <jgs7nl$l1k$1 AT dough DOT gmane DOT org> <4F31B073 DOT 9010501 AT arlut DOT utexas DOT edu> <20120208055848 DOT GC7184 AT ednor DOT casa DOT cgf DOT cx> <4F3299A6 DOT 7090105 AT arlut DOT utexas DOT edu> <4F329CCC DOT 6060604 AT bopp DOT net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <4F329CCC.6060604@bopp.net>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14)
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 Wed, Feb 08, 2012 at 10:03:24AM -0600, Jeremy Bopp wrote:
>On 02/08/2012 09:49 AM, Jesse Ziser wrote:
>> On 2/7/2012 11:58 PM, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>>> On Tue, Feb 07, 2012 at 05:14:59PM -0600, Jesse Ziser wrote:
>>>> If you really want Mingw (a free compiler and development environment
>>>> for Windows), maybe what you should do is just download and install
>>>> Mingw, and use that, instead of doing it through the Cygwin compiler
>>>> using a barely-supported option.  (Then you should get help with any
>>>> problems you have over at Mingw's website instead of here.)
>>>
>>> The MinGW cross-compiles are not "barely supported".  They are included
>>> in the distribution precisely so that people can build pure-windows
>>> programs under Cygwin.
>> 
>> Oh?  Then I got the wrong impression from the documentation and the
>> mailing list when I was trying to work all that out a few years ago.  I
>> can't find it now, but I could swear there was something about it being
>> "deprecated" or "partially supported" or something.
>
>I think there is a tiny misunderstanding here.  I believe that Jesse was
>talking about the -mno-cygwin option when he spoke of "using a
>barely-supported option".  Chris seems to have misinterpreted that to
>mean that MinGW cross-compilers themselves were claimed to be
>"barely-supported".

I was not misinterpreting.  I was responding to the language.
Instructing someone to go elsewhere when we have a perfectly usable set
of tools which do exactly what's required is wrong.

And, given that this fact has already been made clear in this very
mailing list within the past several days, the advice really didn't make
any sense.

cgf

--
Problem reports:       http://cygwin.com/problems.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple