Eric Backus wrote:
> Christopher Faylor cygwin.com> writes:
>>> which would put all the confusion to rest.
>> Big DITTO. As Dave said, the option is already gone...
>
> Moving to a better solution is great! But isn't it customary to have some
> overlap period where the deprecated solution sti
Christopher Faylor cygwin.com> writes:
> On Mon, Mar 23, 2009 at 02:22:03PM +, Greg Chicares wrote:
> >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
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
On Mon, Mar 23, 2009 at 02:22:03PM +, Greg Chicares wrote:
>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 cygw
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
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 d
Steve Thompson wrote:
> uOn Mon, 23 Mar 2009, Yaakov (Cygwin/X) wrote:
>
>> Please, NO! -mno-cygwin needs to go away already.
>
> Why?
>
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 heade
Yaakov (Cygwin/X) wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA256
>
> Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>> It might be helpful for a transition period to retain both options.
>>
>> $ i686-pc-cygwin-gcc -mcygwin <- just works
>> $ i686-pc-cygwin-gcc -mno-cygwin <- Spits out a wa
uOn Mon, 23 Mar 2009, Yaakov (Cygwin/X) wrote:
Please, NO! -mno-cygwin needs to go away already.
Why?
-Steve
--
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> It might be helpful for a transition period to retain both options.
>
> $ i686-pc-cygwin-gcc -mcygwin <- just works
> $ i686-pc-cygwin-gcc -mno-cygwin<- Spits out a warning
Please, NO! -mno-cygwin ne
On Mar 23 00:42, Dave Korn wrote:
>
>
> Ho there gang. Over on gcc-patches, Kai has posted a patch to add some
> documentation for the i386 cygming subtarget options. See the thread at:
>
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2009-03/threads.html#00994
>
> I asked him if he would add a
Ho there gang. Over on gcc-patches, Kai has posted a patch to add some
documentation for the i386 cygming subtarget options. See the thread at:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2009-03/threads.html#00994
I asked him if he would add a note mentioning that -mno-cygwin is
deprecated, an
12 matches
Mail list logo
