Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help@sourceware.cygnus.com; run by ezmlm List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-owner@sources.redhat.com Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin@sources.redhat.com X-Authentication-Warning: rachel.vtab.com: jojo set sender to jojo@virtutech.se using -f To: "Larry Hall (RFK Partners, Inc)" Cc: cygwin@cygwin.com Subject: Re: Up-to-date info on '-mno-cygwin' vs. Mingw32 References: <4.3.1.2.20010830093245.02235f08@pop.ma.ultranet.com> From: Jesper Eskilson Organization: Virtutech AB Date: 31 Aug 2001 08:50:56 +0200 In-Reply-To: <4.3.1.2.20010830093245.02235f08@pop.ma.ultranet.com> ("Larry Hall's message of "Thu, 30 Aug 2001 09:34:52 -0400") Message-ID: Lines: 16 User-Agent: Gnus/5.090003 (Oort Gnus v0.03) XEmacs/21.1 (Cuyahoga Valley) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii "Larry Hall (RFK Partners, Inc)" writes: > The difference is in the build environment, not the result. According to the FAQ, support for the -mno-cygwin flag "has been weak and flaky, [...] and maintenance of the option has *not* been a priority in development", and the FAQ recommends that one uses a separate MingW compiler set. Is this accurate? /Jesper -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Jesper Eskilson jojo@virtutech.se Virtutech http://www.virtutech.se ------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Bug reporting: http://cygwin.com/bugs.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/