PING: Deprecation of -mno-cygwin.

Christopher Faylor cgf-use-the-mailinglist-please@cygwin.com
Mon Mar 23 15:00:00 GMT 2009


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/



More information about the Cygwin mailing list