On Wed, 2013 Oct 23 7:55-0400, Earnie Boyd wrote:
>
> JonY you forget to mention that what Daniel is trying to do has
> already been tried once and long since abandoned in favor of using a
> cross compiler. Remember the -mno-cygwin conglomeration of ugliness?
Well, that's using a single toolchain
On Wed, 2013 Oct 23 18:05+0800, JonY wrote:
> >
> > I never suggested replacing Cygwin-GCC with MinGW-GCC
>
> You just did, CC=i686-pc-mingw32-gcc, they are NOT drop-in
> replacements.
I'm aware that the two compilers produce different kinds of outputs (a
Cygwin binary versus a native Win32 binary
On 10/23/2013 19:55, Earnie Boyd wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 6:09 AM, JonY wrote:
>> On 10/23/2013 13:49, Daniel Richard G. wrote:
>>> It's a situation where the two "platforms" are not all that different---
>>> the system can run binaries from both---and avoiding the need to
>>> rigorously cr
On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 6:09 AM, JonY wrote:
> On 10/23/2013 13:49, Daniel Richard G. wrote:
>> It's a situation where the two "platforms" are not all that different---
>> the system can run binaries from both---and avoiding the need to
>> rigorously cross-compile from one to the other is a big con
On 10/23/2013 13:49, Daniel Richard G. wrote:
> It's a situation where the two "platforms" are not all that different---
> the system can run binaries from both---and avoiding the need to
> rigorously cross-compile from one to the other is a big convenience.
>
> Obviously, Cygwin vs. MinGW program
On 10/23/2013 13:53, Daniel Richard G. wrote:
> On Tue, 2013 Oct 22 17:38+0800, JonY wrote:
>>
>> This has nothing to do with MSYS vs Cygwin, your whole patch is messed
>> up, it needs to be shot down and burned like the bad idea it is.
>> Cygwin ships a CROSS COMPILER, mingw gcc is not a replaceme
