This is the mail archive of the
cygwin@sourceware.cygnus.com
mailing list for the Cygwin project.
RE: CygUtils Version of zip (and Symlinks)
- To: "Parker, Ron" <rdparker at butlermfg dot com>, Cosmin Truta <cosmin at cs dot toronto dot edu>, Charles Wilson <cwilson at ece dot gatech dot edu>
- Subject: RE: CygUtils Version of zip (and Symlinks)
- From: Earnie Boyd <earnie_boyd at yahoo dot com>
- Date: Thu, 25 May 2000 09:19:19 -0700 (PDT)
- Cc: Jason Tishler <Jason dot Tishler at dothill dot com>, cygwin at sourceware dot cygnus dot com
- Reply-To: earnie_boyd at yahoo dot com
--- "Parker, Ron" <rdparker@butlermfg.com> wrote:
> > > When you get right down to it, cygwin is NOT windows. It
> > does everything
> > > it can to make windows look like Unix, so that apps can run
> > *as if they
> > > were on unix* with little or no changes. So, by that logic,
> > > cygwin-zip/unzip =should= be built as unix-ish apps, not windows-ish
> > > ones.
> >
> > Maybe you are right.
> > I personally look at gcc as a free alternative for a good
> > Win32 compiler,
> > but I agree that cygwin is a "Unix on Win" and maybe most of
> > the people
> > look at it that way.
>
> ISTM that the right behavior would be for cygwin to build a UNIX-ish (un)zip
> and for mingw to build a Windows style program. As already pointed out
> cygwin should be thought of as "Unix on Win" and IMO mingw should be thought
> of as "as a free alternative for a good Win32 compiler".
>
I agree.
> I realize that cygwin and mingw are both supported by the same compiler, but
> supplying -mno-cygwin causes gcc to switch from cygwin to mingw behavior and
> __MINGW32__ becomes defined.
>
This is really a pseudo cross-compile and would be better handled IMO as a true
canadian-cross so that the headers and support libs aren't in the same
directory.
> This may be more a question for cygwin-developers, but I hate crossposts and
> know most readers of that list at least review this one. So, wouldn't it be
> appropriate when compiling without -mno-cygwin for the specs file to define
> "unix", "UNIX" and similar "standard" defines? They seem to be checked for
> in newlib, zlib, X11, and many other sources?
>
Well actually, I've wondered about adding unix and linux and 'similar
"standard" defines' myself. What would you consider "standard"?
> Yes I know I can make this change in my local sources, but I prefer to work
> with standard sources and now seemed a good time to bring it up. I have
> been wondering about it for some time.
I have modified my specs file to remove the defines for _WIN32 and WINNT. I've
thought of adding unix type defines but haven't yet.
Regards,
=====
---
Earnie Boyd: <mailto:earnie_boyd@yahoo.com>
__Cygwin: POSIX on Windows__
Cygwin Newbies: <http://www.freeyellow.com/members5/gw32/index.html>
__Minimalist GNU for Windows__
Mingw32 List: <http://www.egroups.com/group/mingw32/>
Mingw Home: <http://www.mingw.org/>
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Kick off your party with Yahoo! Invites.
http://invites.yahoo.com/
--
Want to unsubscribe from this list?
Send a message to cygwin-unsubscribe@sourceware.cygnus.com