On Wed, Jan 31, 2007 at 12:46:28PM -0500, Williams, Gerald S (Jerry) wrote: >Christopher Faylor wrote: >> When I was maintaining cygwin's gcc, I often thought about eliminating >> -mno-cygwin and just providing a pure mingw cross compiler in the >> distribution. > >I completely agree. Anybody depending on -mno-cygwin can create >their own shell wrapper. I personally don't care so much about a >deprecation period, as long as it explodes noisily and points me >in the right direction three years from now when I try to run an >old build script that happens to use it. > >Big projects really shouldn't be using -mno-cygwin, anyway--the >preferred way to do it is to install MinGW compilers and either >use MSYS or change your Cygwin path to put MinGW's tools first. > >How complete of a cross chain were you thinking about supporting? I >only installed the compilers and my MinGW bin contains over 60 unique >executables--that could mean a fair number of i686-mingw-* programs >created (consider GNAT for example).
I just thought that something which provides similar functionality to what is available now would be required. That means MinGW versions of gcc and binutils. 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/
