On 2009-03-23 14:00Z, Steve Thompson wrote: > On Mon, 23 Mar 2009, Dave Korn wrote: > >> It's a bit of a kludge compared to having a real honest-to-god >> cross-compiler. It's never worked entirely right in terms of keeping cygwin >> and mingw headers and libs completely separate. A full-blown mingw >> cross-compiler won't cost that much in terms of disk space and the >> reliability >> and correctness improvements will be worth it. > > That's very interesting. I've been using -mno-cygwin for several years, > having done many many thousands of compiles and links using it, and I have > never had a problem with either headers or libraries! Is there a > recommended alternative?
The recommended alternative is the forthcoming mingw cross-compiler. I think Yaakov's right to recommend a clean break with the past: | > $ i686-pc-cygwin-gcc -mno-cygwin <- Spits out a warning | | Please, NO! -mno-cygwin needs to go away already. which would put all the confusion to rest. If the i386-pc-mingw32 true cross-compiler is gcc-4.x, then much code will have to be changed anyway because of stricter diagnostics; it's actually kinder IMO to force makefiles to change at the same time, by treating -m[no-]cygwin as an error. -- 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/
