On 28 April 2006 18:04, Lloyd Wood wrote:
> At Friday 2006-04-28 17:44 +0100, Dave Korn wrote:
>> On 28 April 2006 17:07, Lloyd Wood wrote:
>>
>>> At Friday 2006-04-28 11:45 -0400, Williams, Gerald S \(Jerry\) wrote:
>>>> If you need to find out what gcc is targeting, perhaps you should use
>>>> "-dumpmachine" instead.
>>>>
>>>> $ gcc -dumpmachine
>>>> i686-pc-cygwin
>>>> $ gcc -dumpmachine -mno-cygwin
>>>> i686-pc-mingw32
>>>
>>> Having identification behaviour dependent on a cygwin-specific flag
>>> like this is.. insane.
>>
>> When you use -mno-cygwin, you are invoking A DIFFERENT
>> compiler. Having the
>> *same* identification for two different compilers that target different
>> targets would be insane.
>
> But gee, that's exactly what gcc -v provides. A single identification
> for both compilers.
<smacks forehead> How many times, for crying out loud? The output of "gcc
-v" IS NOT A FORMAL IDENTIFIER OF ANY SORT WHATSOEVER.
> Why isn't there a gcc -v -mno-cygwin, then?
Because it's still the same compiler package? Because nobody has ever cared
about it because nobody has ever been daft enough to attempt to misuse the
"gcc -v" output in this way before?
[ This space intentionally left blank for L.Wood to explain why "gcc -v"
ought to be a formal identifier and why everyone else in the world should
change things round so we can do it all his way. ]
> It's all positively minging. (Chris: note the usage tip. First g
> pronounced as j, so it's unlike any Chinese dynasties or Flash
> Gordon's nemesis.)
Actually it's minging to rhyme with singing, as anyone who has watched
Little Britain or Catherine Tate's show should know.
[ This space intentionally left blank for L.Wood to insist that everyone
should pronounce words the way that /he/ does. ]
cheers,
DaveK
--
Can't think of a witty .sigline today....
--
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/
