On Jan 31 08:31, Christopher Faylor wrote: > On Wed, Jan 31, 2007 at 02:27:00PM +0100, Samuel Thibault wrote: > >Eric Blake, le Wed 31 Jan 2007 06:18:22 -0700, a ?crit : > >> I would much rather call the cross-compiler i686-mingw-gcc than the > >> current name of 'gcc -mno-cygwin'. > > > >Same for me. > > Thinking about this some more, it seems like we'd need a real > cygwin-based mingw cross compiler rather than a wrapped mingw compiler > since otherwise there would be path and signal issues.
While I agree with the general idea, I have to add the obligatory hint that there are many projects out there which build environment requires `gcc -mno-cygwin' to work. All of them will break with at least 50% of the lost user base asking on the Cygwin list for help. So I'm wondering if we are not better off with sticking to the `gcc -mno-cygwin' interface, regardless how this is implemented under the hood. > And, as long as we're talking about cross-compilers, a cygwin -> linux > cross compiler would probably be nice, too. Sorry, but we don't support Linux on this mailing list. ;) Corinna -- Corinna Vinschen Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to Cygwin Project Co-Leader cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Red Hat -- 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/
