Mail Archives: cygwin-developers/2001/10/26/09:06:32
Andrew Begel <abegel AT eecs DOT berkeley DOT edu> writes:
> That's not the problem. MinGW doesn't pretend to do more than it
> advertises; simply a gcc that accepts both windows and unix style
> paths,
So "gcc -mno-cygwin" does, as well as any other Cygwin application which
accepts
c:/cygwin/usr/local/test.c
c:\cygwin\usr\local\test.c
/cygdrive/c/cygwin/usr/local/test.c
/usr/local/test.c
A bit more flexible than Mingw, isn't it? :-)
> and produces executables that link with Microsoft libraries
> rather than cygwin1.dll. The build environment that MS provides is
> pretty crappy. I'm porting Linux apps, and I like cygwin's unixy side
> for development. I just need the apps to be compiled without
> cygwin. (Oh, did I mention these were C++ apps that I'm making? Those
> require MinGW's g++ compiler, unless cygwin is now distribution
> (again) the C++ support libraries/headers for MinGW?)
Again, what is the problem with "gcc -mno-cygwin", if mingw-build C++
libraries are supplied?
[...]
> Yes, I want a), but I want to use MinGW's gcc compiler, not Cygwin's
> cross compiler.
You have not convinced me that you *really* need Mingw-build gcc.
> Since the include directories are different (see
> above) I need to distinguish between the two at some point in the
> configure/compile process....
You needn't. All paths that Mingw-build gcc accepts is also acceptable for
Cygwin-build gcc (no matter is -mno-cygwin flag used or not). As for your
application sources (XEmacs or whatever), they should *not* rely on the
place where the system include files resides. If they do, it's very bad
programming style, if not to say more ...
Hope to hear from you soon,
Dmitry
- Raw text -