On Mon, Mar 23, 2009 at 02:22:03PM +0000, 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 cygwin >>> and mingw headers and libs completely separate. A full-blown mingw >>> cross-compiler won't cost that much in terms of disk space and the >>> reliability >>> and correctness improvements will be worth it. >> >> That's very interesting. I've been using -mno-cygwin for several years, >> having done many many thousands of compiles and links using it, and I have >> never had a problem with either headers or libraries! Is there a >> recommended alternative? > >The recommended alternative is the forthcoming mingw cross-compiler. > >I think Yaakov's right to recommend a clean break with the past: > >| > $ i686-pc-cygwin-gcc -mno-cygwin <- Spits out a warning >| >| Please, NO! -mno-cygwin needs to go away already. > >which would put all the confusion to rest. If the i386-pc-mingw32 >true cross-compiler is gcc-4.x, then much code will have to be >changed anyway because of stricter diagnostics; it's actually >kinder IMO to force makefiles to change at the same time, by >treating -m[no-]cygwin as an error.
Big DITTO. As Dave said, the option is already gone so I don't think we need to rehash what to do. I do think it makes sense to add a "(deprecated)" to any text which currently discusses the option though. 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/
