Re: Eliminating -mno-cygwin from gcc?

[Christopher Faylor <cgf-use-the-mailinglist-please at cygwin dot com>]

On Wed, Jan 31, 2007 at 02:52:42PM -0000, Dave Korn wrote:
>On 31 January 2007 13:49, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>
>[yep, ntsec, haven't forgotten. sorry for slowness!]
>
>> On Jan 31 08:31, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>>> On Wed, Jan 31, 2007 at 02:27:00PM +0100, Samuel Thibault wrote:
>>>> Eric Blake, le Wed 31 Jan 2007 06:18:22 -0700, a ?crit :
>>>>> I would much rather call the cross-compiler i686-mingw-gcc than the
>>>>> current name of 'gcc -mno-cygwin'.
>>>> 
>>>> Same for me.
>>> 
>>> Thinking about this some more, it seems like we'd need a real
>>> cygwin-based mingw cross compiler rather than a wrapped mingw compiler
>>> since otherwise there would be path and signal issues.
>> 
>> While I agree with the general idea, I have to add the obligatory hint
>> that there are many projects out there which build environment requires
>> `gcc -mno-cygwin' to work.  All of them will break with at least 50% of
>> the lost user base asking on the Cygwin list for help.
>> 
>> So I'm wondering if we are not better off with sticking to the
>> `gcc -mno-cygwin' interface, regardless how this is implemented under
>> the hood.
>
>  My preference would be to keep it and fix the one-or-two minor bugs in the
>way it sets up the include/lib search paths.

I don't think they are really minor bugs but whatever bugs are there have
been around for many years now.  They would all magically go away if we
just split the package in two.

I feel pretty strongly about this.  I really don't think this option should
exist.  It's unlike every other gcc port on the planet.

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/