This is the mail archive of the
cygwin
mailing list for the Cygwin project.
Re: Eliminating -mno-cygwin from gcc?
- From: Christopher Faylor <cgf-use-the-mailinglist-please at cygwin dot com>
- To: cygwin at cygwin dot com
- Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2007 07:15:53 -0500
- Subject: Re: Eliminating -mno-cygwin from gcc?
- References: <20070131131337.GA17256@trixie.casa.cgf.cx> <45C2BF7D.9060206@users.sourceforge.net>
- Reply-to: cygwin at cygwin dot com
On Thu, Feb 01, 2007 at 10:35:09PM -0600, Yaakov (Cygwin Ports) wrote:
>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>Hash: SHA256
>
>Christopher Faylor wrote:
>> How about if we eliminate -mno-cygwin from future releases and either
>> provide our own mingw cross-tools or wrap the offerings from mingw.org?
>> This would mean that instead of saying 'gcc -mno-cygwin', you'd say:
>> 'i686-mingw-gcc' which would, I know, make a few computers spontaneously
>> self-destruct however, I really don't think that the -mno-cygwin belongs
>> in gcc. No other port of gcc has anything like this.
>
>Pros:
>
>1) Makes gcc package *much* easier to develop, encouraging faster
>version bumps and perhaps more involvement in gcc development (I, for
>one, would like to see a shared libstdc++, etc.).
I'm not sure that it makes the gcc package that much easier to develop
since, presumably, we'd be adding a new gcc mingw package which would
have to be kept in step with the cygwin gcc.
>2) Eliminate most new-user confusion.
>
>3) Eliminate confusion on the part of software developers who think that
>they can port to Cygwin with -mno-cygwin. (Go figure. Somehow even
>_developers_ can't figure that one out.)
>
>4) Closer to behaviour on other platforms.
>
>Cons:
>
>There are a number of build systems that rely on -mno-cygwin; mozilla
>and company come to mind as a major example. (Then again, as much as I
>like and use their software, their build system is IMO broken, and
>that's the reason none of it is in Ports.)
Don't forget that Cygwin itself uses it. That would require a change in
Cygwin's build, which I am, of course, willing to do.
Also, in case it isn't clear, I'm one of the GNU maintainers for the Windows
version of gcc, so I'm not making this suggestion lightly.
(And, yes, I have talked with Dave Korn about this)
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/