=== ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jon Leichter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Earnie and Robert, > > I'm a bit confused when I consider the commentary that you both have > contributed on this topic. Here's what I have assessed. You two guys correct > me where I'm wrong. > > === > > Robert has implied that using GCC with -mno-cygwin is virtually a > cross-compile and should be treated as such. An up-to-date and well written > configure script would require that the user have i686-pc-mingw32-gcc (which > as a script or a binary invokes gcc -mno-cygwin). He would not necessarily > need to symlink other binutils to i686-pc-mingw32-<tool> because the > configure script would find the build (Cygwin) tools after checking for the > host tools. He would invoke configure with the following: Reread the thread. I indicated you should have those symlinks. It *may work* without them, that is different from what *I would do*. > Earnie. Your comments seem to contradict each other. In your last email, it > seems you are implying that "gcc -mno-cygwin" is NOT a cross-compile. And > then you went on to explain how I could safely use the switches if I set > symlinks to emulate a cross-compile. Which point of view do you support > Earnie? gcc -mno-cygwin isn't a cross compile. It links with a different libc, and puts different headers in the search path - that's all. It *also* happens to meet the criteria for a cross compile in that 1) cygwin gcc accepts / and \ paths 2) the mingw libraries are present and the file format is understood. 3) The resulting binaries are compatible with the platform. This is more of an accident than plan :} Rob -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Bug reporting: http://cygwin.com/bugs.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
