Mail Archives: cygwin/1997/01/17/21:07:10
James Osburn wrote:
>
> My two bits on the cygwin.dll and cygnus in general.
>
> First the cygwin.dll is to large It should not
> contain the unix to win32 interface.
Since the cygwin C library is UNIX code that depends upon UNIX
semantics, if cygwin.dll didn't contain the unix to win32 interface,
it *wouldn't work*. If you want to separate out the libc and libm
routines into separate DLLs, that can be done; if you want to pare
down the cygwin routines, that can be done. As has been posted here
many times now, Colin Peters has done some of this; go check out his
work.
> Second, there should
> be a facility to compile statically and to separate the
> C runtime and C++ runtimes into seperate dlls and statically
> linkable libs.
libg.a is a statically linkable lib.
> The task of porting all the gnu unix to win32
> via the gcc should be dropped. It poisons an otherwise
> very good idea: gcc for win32.
I cannot fathom the thinking that says that the cygwin project,
which is a project to port a unix environment to Windows, should
drop porting a unix environment to Windows. If *you* want just gcc
for Windows, and you think it should be divorced from the unix
library and the GNU configure facility and all the rest, then why don't
*you* go out and write it? The cygnus people are a *GNU* support
organization; cygwin, as I understand it, was envisioned as a port
of the *GNU* utilities to Windows. And many of us have benefited from
it. The only poison I see here is the suggestion that something that
many other people want should be dropped because you don't happen
to want it.
If you want a more minimal system go check out Colin Peters' work.
Maybe you could even lend him a hand.
--
<J Q B>
-
For help on using this list, send a message to
"gnu-win32-request AT cygnus DOT com" with one line of text: "help".
- Raw text -