"Christopher Faylor" wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[snip]
I guess this means that I need to generate a cross-binutils, too.
Is a cross-binutils really needed? Which (if any) of the binutils act
differently when targeted at MingW32
than when targeted at Cygwin?
(I've never worked
On Tue, 6 Feb 2007, Eliah Kagan wrote:
> On 2/6/07, Frank Fesevur wrote:
> > If you want a use a popup, please make it aware of the --quiet option!
> > [snip]
> > And could the 'file in use' message box also respect the --quiet option?
>
> Perhaps there could be a flag to cause setup.exe to succee
Frank Fesevur wrote:
> At 5-2-2007 17:58, Charles Wilson wrote:
>> Sounds to me like we need to consider extending the setup.ini format
>> (and, by extension, the setup.hint format) to include an optional field:
>> popup: This package is a significant change from the previous release.
>> Please c
On 2/6/07, Frank Fesevur wrote:
If you want a use a popup, please make it aware of the --quiet option!
I run 'setup.exe --quiet' from a simple .bat script to update my
installation (first stopping and afterwards starting again my sshd). And
even that is not always free of popups (when files are
At 5-2-2007 17:58, Charles Wilson wrote:
Sounds to me like we need to consider extending the setup.ini format
(and, by extension, the setup.hint format) to include an optional field:
popup: This package is a significant change from the previous release.
Please check http://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin
Igor Peshansky wrote:
On Tue, 6 Feb 2007, Matthew Woehlke wrote:
...but doesn't the script itself involve a fork? On a big project, with
an extra fork for every source file, that can still add up.
Don't forget that invoking the gcc executable from make or the shell
involves a fork anyway. If
On Tue, 6 Feb 2007, Matthew Woehlke wrote:
> Igor Peshansky wrote:
> > On Sun, 4 Feb 2007, Yaakov (Cygwin Ports) wrote:
> > > Will using shell wrappers noticably slow down calls to gcc? Or should
> > > we just start explicitly calling i686-pc-cygwin-gcc instead? (FWIW
> > > Gentoo does the equiv
Igor Peshansky wrote:
On Sun, 4 Feb 2007, Yaakov (Cygwin Ports) wrote:
Will using shell wrappers noticably slow down calls to gcc? Or should
we just start explicitly calling i686-pc-cygwin-gcc instead? (FWIW
Gentoo does the equivalent of the latter.)
I don't think speed itself will be a prob
On Sun, 4 Feb 2007, Yaakov (Cygwin Ports) wrote:
> Dave Korn wrote:
> >
> > There have been no serious objections, so I think we should go
> > ahead. Perhaps we should replace the gcc, g++, g77 etc. drivers with
> > shell scripts that look for -mno-cygwin on the command line and
> > redirect to
Yaakov (Cygwin Ports) wrote:
Will using shell wrappers noticably slow down calls to gcc? Or should
we just start explicitly calling i686-pc-cygwin-gcc instead? (FWIW
Gentoo does the equivalent of the latter.)
Um. That's a good question. I think the answer to your first question is
"yes", and
Christopher Faylor wrote:
I suppose that you could add a post-install script but it is too late at
that point. This would force a normal cygwin user into a reinstall frenzy
from which they might not ever recover. It might be better than nothing,
though.
Sounds to me like we need to consider
Christopher Faylor wrote:
On Mon, Feb 05, 2007 at 10:06:41AM -0600, Matthew Woehlke wrote:
Larry Hall (Cygwin) wrote:
The discussion has been to augment 'setup.exe' in a way as to provide users
with feedback about "important" package changes in general. It has come up
in the context of the gcc
On Mon, Feb 05, 2007 at 10:06:41AM -0600, Matthew Woehlke wrote:
>Larry Hall (Cygwin) wrote:
>>The discussion has been to augment 'setup.exe' in a way as to provide users
>>with feedback about "important" package changes in general. It has come up
>>in the context of the gcc change but would have
Larry Hall (Cygwin) wrote:
The discussion has been to augment 'setup.exe' in a way as to provide users
with feedback about "important" package changes in general. It has come up
in the context of the gcc change but would have to apply generally.
"Important" would be defined by the maintainer by
On Feb 5 07:13, Christopher Faylor wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 05, 2007 at 11:58:38AM +0100, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> >I'm somewhat concerned about this step, though. How is the configure in
> >winsup supposed to work, if you suddenly need two compilers to build
> >Cygwin? The top-level configury only
On Mon, Feb 05, 2007 at 11:58:38AM +0100, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>On Feb 4 22:09, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>> On Sun, Feb 04, 2007 at 11:29:59PM -, Dave Korn wrote:
>> >There have been no serious objections, so I think we should go ahead.
>> >Perhaps we should replace the gcc, g++, g77 etc.
On Mon, Feb 05, 2007 at 04:04:41AM -, Dave Korn wrote:
>On 05 February 2007 03:10, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>>I guess this means that I need to generate a cross-binutils, too.
>
>Should be no need; the scripts I'm using do the lot.
I'm the binutils maintainer so I'd prefer building binutils m
On Feb 5 11:58, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> I'm somewhat concerned about this step, though. How is the configure in
> winsup supposed to work, if you suddenly need two compilers to build
> Cygwin? The top-level configury only takes one target, not two. If you
> only have a linux-x-cygwin cross co
On Feb 4 22:09, Christopher Faylor wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 04, 2007 at 11:29:59PM -, Dave Korn wrote:
> >There have been no serious objections, so I think we should go ahead.
> >Perhaps we should replace the gcc, g++, g77 etc. drivers with shell
> >scripts that look for -mno-cygwin on the comman
On 05 February 2007 03:01, Christopher Faylor wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 04, 2007 at 11:03:12PM -, Dave Korn wrote:
>> On 31 January 2007 15:39, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>>
>>
Sorry, but we don't support Linux on this mailing list. ;)
>>>
>>> Yes we do. I just changed the cygwin web page.
On 05 February 2007 03:10, Christopher Faylor wrote:
> I guess this means that I need to generate a cross-binutils, too.
Should be no need; the scripts I'm using do the lot.
cheers,
DaveK
--
Can't think of a witty .sigline today
--
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml
Yaakov (Cygwin Ports) wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Christopher Faylor wrote:
If you have been reading this list for any length of time then it should
be obvious that merely mentioning something in cygwin-announce is not an
adequate way to let people know about serious
Christopher Faylor wrote:
Having a true mingw cross-compiler does sound like the right first step.
I guess this means that I need to generate a cross-binutils, too.
And we'll probably have to have w32api install into both
/usr/include/w32api|/usr/lib/w32api/ and also into
/usr/i686-pc-mingw3
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Christopher Faylor wrote:
> If you have been reading this list for any length of time then it should
> be obvious that merely mentioning something in cygwin-announce is not an
> adequate way to let people know about serious changes.
Trust me I know;
On Sun, Feb 04, 2007 at 09:13:32PM -0600, Yaakov (Cygwin Ports) wrote:
>Christopher Faylor wrote:
>>I think I'd rather wait until some kind of early warning system is
>>available in setup.exe than issue a "deprecated" warning which has the
>>capacity to propagate everywhere and live for a long time
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Christopher Faylor wrote:
> I think I'd rather wait until some kind of early warning system is
> available in setup.exe than issue a "deprecated" warning which has
> the capacity to propagate everywhere and live for a long time.
Why isn't cygwin-ann
On Sun, Feb 04, 2007 at 11:29:59PM -, Dave Korn wrote:
>There have been no serious objections, so I think we should go ahead.
>Perhaps we should replace the gcc, g++, g77 etc. drivers with shell
>scripts that look for -mno-cygwin on the command line and redirect to
>i686-pc-mingw-{gcc,g++,etc}
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Dave Korn wrote:
>
> There have been no serious objections, so I think we should go ahead.
> Perhaps we should replace the gcc, g++, g77 etc. drivers with shell scripts
> that look for -mno-cygwin on the command line and redirect to
> i686-pc-ming
On Sun, Feb 04, 2007 at 11:03:12PM -, Dave Korn wrote:
>On 31 January 2007 15:39, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>
>
>>> Sorry, but we don't support Linux on this mailing list. ;)
>>
>> Yes we do. I just changed the cygwin web page. :-)
>
> Copyright line needs updating...
What in the world doe
There have been no serious objections, so I think we should go ahead.
Perhaps we should replace the gcc, g++, g77 etc. drivers with shell scripts
that look for -mno-cygwin on the command line and redirect to
i686-pc-mingw-{gcc,g++,etc} or to i686-pc-cygwin-{gcc,g++,etc}, just to make
life easie
On 31 January 2007 15:39, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>> Sorry, but we don't support Linux on this mailing list. ;)
>
> Yes we do. I just changed the cygwin web page. :-)
>
> cgf
Copyright line needs updating...
cheers,
DaveK
--
Can't think of a witty .sigline today
index-
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Christopher Faylor wrote:
> 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.
It will be easier because the C
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?
>
-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
Wynfield Henman wrote:
> I for one am not adverse to your proposition of separating the ming
There's no such thing as "ming". The name of the project is MinGW,
Minimalist GNU for Windows.
> (mno-cygwin) functionality into its own script or program. This would
MinGW has been a separately maint
I for one am not adverse to your proposition of separating the ming
(mno-cygwin) functionality into its own script or program. This would
reduce cygwin gcc's complexity and make it easier to port to cygwin
and hopefully, mean nearer gcc versions faster. And by branching off
the mno-cygwin, it ca
On Thu, Feb 01, 2007 at 11:14:28AM -0500, Lev Bishop wrote:
>On 2/1/07, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>>On Feb 1 07:15, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>>> We were going to replace text mounts with automatic file conversion using
>>> "d2u":
>>>
>>> cygwin: CRLF line endings detected. Converting.
>>
>>I thi
On 2/1/07, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
On Feb 1 07:15, Christopher Faylor wrote:
> We were going to replace text mounts with automatic file conversion using
> "d2u":
>
> cygwin: CRLF line endings detected. Converting.
I think this is too complicated. What about
cygwin: CRLF line endings dete
On 01 February 2007 15:47, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> On Feb 1 07:15, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>> On Thu, Feb 01, 2007 at 11:39:46AM +0100, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>>> On Feb 1 02:16, Christopher Layne wrote:
Fine by me. Can we slip in removing text mounts at the same time? ;)
>>>
>>> Oooo
On Feb 1 07:15, Christopher Faylor wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 01, 2007 at 11:39:46AM +0100, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> >On Feb 1 02:16, Christopher Layne wrote:
> >> Fine by me. Can we slip in removing text mounts at the same time? ;)
> >
> >Oh, now you spoiled the surprise. I hoped to get the text
On Thu, Feb 01, 2007 at 03:15:54PM +0100, Angelo Graziosi wrote:
>Christopher Faylor wrote:
>
>> If people are calling gcc from non-cygwin apps, then I don't think I
>> care too much. We can also provide a sed script to change "gcc
>> -mno-cygwin" to "i686-mingw-gcc".
>
>
>... and if they do not l
Christopher Faylor wrote:
> If people are calling gcc from non-cygwin apps, then I don't think I
> care too much. We can also provide a sed script to change "gcc
> -mno-cygwin" to "i686-mingw-gcc".
... and if they do not like the name "i686-mingw-gcc", they could create
symbolic links "gcc32 -
On Thu, Feb 01, 2007 at 05:36:17PM +1300, Danny Smith wrote:
>cgf 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?
>
>
>I would miss -mno-cygwin. Gcc -mno-cygwin suppports symlinks, min
On Thu, Feb 01, 2007 at 11:39:46AM +0100, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>On Feb 1 02:16, Christopher Layne wrote:
>> On Wed, Jan 31, 2007 at 08:13:37AM -0500, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>> > When I was maintaining cygwin's gcc, I often thought about eliminating
>> > -mno-cygwin and just providing a pure
On Wed, Jan 31, 2007 at 07:24:50PM -0500, Igor Peshansky wrote:
>On Wed, 31 Jan 2007, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Jan 31, 2007 at 10:29:01AM -0600, Matthew Woehlke wrote:
>> >Matt Wozniski wrote:
>> >>Before simply ripping out support for it, how about just adding a
>> >>message to gcc s
On Feb 1 02:16, Christopher Layne wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 31, 2007 at 08:13:37AM -0500, Christopher Faylor wrote:
> > When I was maintaining cygwin's gcc, I often thought about eliminating
> > -mno-cygwin and just providing a pure mingw cross compiler in the
> > distribution. I really don't know why
On Wed, Jan 31, 2007 at 08:13:37AM -0500, Christopher Faylor wrote:
> When I was maintaining cygwin's gcc, I often thought about eliminating
> -mno-cygwin and just providing a pure mingw cross compiler in the
> distribution. I really don't know why it wasn't done that way to begin
> with. I have
On Feb 1 17:36, Danny Smith wrote:
>
> cgf 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?
>
>
> I would miss -mno-cygwin. Gcc -mno-cygwin suppports symlinks, mingw
> doesn't.
cgf 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?
I would miss -mno-cygwin. Gcc -mno-cygwin suppports symlinks, mingw
doesn't.
--host=i686-pc-cygwin --target=i686-pc-cygwin would be
[I haven't read the whole thread yet, so I reserve the right to revise
and extend. Also, to say something somebody else already did, or
otherwise generally make an idiot of myself]
Christopher Faylor wrote:
How about if we eliminate -mno-cygwin from future releases and either
provide our own
On Wed, 31 Jan 2007, Christopher Faylor wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 31, 2007 at 10:29:01AM -0600, Matthew Woehlke wrote:
> >Matt Wozniski wrote:
> >>Before simply ripping out support for it, how about just adding a
> >>message to gcc so that when passed "-mnocygwin" on the command line, it
> >>warns that
Chris Sutcliffe wrote:
I just thought that something which provides similar functionality to
what is available now would be required. That means MinGW versions of
gcc and binutils.
As long as I'm able to compile w32api and mingw-runtime for MinGW from
within Cygwin, I'll be a happy camper.
Ch
I just thought that something which provides similar functionality to
what is available now would be required. That means MinGW versions of
gcc and binutils.
As long as I'm able to compile w32api and mingw-runtime for MinGW from
within Cygwin, I'll be a happy camper.
Chris
--
Chris Sutcliffe
On Wed, Jan 31, 2007 at 12:46:28PM -0500, Williams, Gerald S (Jerry) wrote:
>Christopher Faylor wrote:
>> When I was maintaining cygwin's gcc, I often thought about eliminating
>> -mno-cygwin and just providing a pure mingw cross compiler in the
>> distribution.
>
>I completely agree. Anybody depen
Christopher Faylor wrote:
> When I was maintaining cygwin's gcc, I often thought about eliminating
> -mno-cygwin and just providing a pure mingw cross compiler in the
> distribution.
I completely agree. Anybody depending on -mno-cygwin can create
their own shell wrapper. I personally don't care so
Christopher Faylor wrote:
On Wed, Jan 31, 2007 at 10:29:01AM -0600, Matthew Woehlke wrote:
Matt Wozniski wrote:
Before simply ripping out support for it, how about just adding a
message to gcc so that when passed "-mnocygwin" on the command line, it
warns that it's deprecated and will be remove
On Wed, 31 Jan 2007, Dave Korn wrote:
> On 31 January 2007 16:19, Brian Ford wrote:
> > On Wed, 31 Jan 2007, Christopher Faylor wrote:
> >> If we REALLY wanted to preserve -mno-cygwin, we could do so as a shell
> >> script wrapper for gcc but, personally, I think I'd rather just tell
> >> people to
On Wed, Jan 31, 2007 at 10:29:01AM -0600, Matthew Woehlke wrote:
>Matt Wozniski wrote:
>>Before simply ripping out support for it, how about just adding a
>>message to gcc so that when passed "-mnocygwin" on the command line, it
>>warns that it's deprecated and will be removed in the near future,
>
Matt Wozniski wrote:
Before simply ripping out support for it, how about just adding a
message to gcc so that when passed "-mnocygwin" on the command line, it
warns that it's deprecated and will be removed in the near future,
before processing?
...and add a REALLY BIG MESSAGE that, if something
Matt Wozniski wrote:
> phase out this 'feature'? While I agree that it wasn't a good feature
> to add in the first place, I think that removing it without at least a
> deprecation warning for a version or two will flood the mailing list
> with traffic by people who didn't realize that something t
On 31 January 2007 16:19, Brian Ford wrote:
> On Wed, 31 Jan 2007, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>
>> If we REALLY wanted to preserve -mno-cygwin, we could do so as a shell
>> script wrapper for gcc but, personally, I think I'd rather just tell
>> people to use the cross-compiler.
>
> Why not just a
On Wed, 31 Jan 2007, Christopher Faylor wrote:
> If we REALLY wanted to preserve -mno-cygwin, we could do so as a shell
> script wrapper for gcc but, personally, I think I'd rather just tell
> people to use the cross-compiler.
Why not just alias -mno-cygwin to -b i686-mingw?
--
Brian Ford
Lead
On 1/31/07, Christopher Faylor wrote:
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
Before simply ripping out support for it, how about just adding a
message to gcc so that when passed "-mnocygwin" on the
On Wed, Jan 31, 2007 at 02:52:42PM -, 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,
On Wed, Jan 31, 2007 at 02:48:42PM +0100, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>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
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 ra
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
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
Eric Blake, le Wed 31 Jan 2007 06:18:22 -0700, a écrit :
> I would much rather call the cross-compiler i686-mingw-gcc than the
> current name of 'gcc -mno-cygwin'.
Same for me.
samuel
--
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/prob
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
According to Christopher Faylor on 1/31/2007 6:13 AM:
>
> 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 -mn
When I was maintaining cygwin's gcc, I often thought about eliminating
-mno-cygwin and just providing a pure mingw cross compiler in the
distribution. I really don't know why it wasn't done that way to begin
with. I have vague recollections of arguing for this when -mno-cygwin
was first introduce
71 matches
Mail list logo
