On 31 January 2007 13:49, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
[yep, ntsec, haven't forgotten. sorry for slowness!]
> 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.
My preference would be to keep it and fix the one-or-two minor bugs in the
way it sets up the include/lib search paths.
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/
