Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help@cygwin.com; run by ezmlm
Sender: cygwin-owner@cygwin.com
From: "Jon Leichter" <jon@symas.com>
To: "Robert Collins" <robert.collins@itdomain.com.au>
Cc: <cygwin@cygwin.com>
Subject: RE: Potential problems with Cygwin GCC and -mno-cygwin switch
Date: Thu, 27 Dec 2001 18:46:25 -0800
Message-ID: <DLEBJKNCNLJEDKMKICHGEENKCAAA.jon@symas.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
In-Reply-To: <04b501c18f48$3e2da2c0$0200a8c0@lifelesswks>
Importance: Normal

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Robert Collins [mailto:robert.collins@itdomain.com.au]
> Sent: Thursday, December 27, 2001 6:35 PM
> To: Jon Leichter
> Cc: cygwin@cygwin.com
> Subject: Re: Potential problems with Cygwin GCC and -mno-cygwin switch
>
> However , once gcc's specs are changedm linking with the libraries they
> provide will fail - which is what I was talking about.

Hmm... I'm not sure why this would be the case. I have relocated my
libraries, and I have updated my specs file. Things work just fine for me
(or it seems). I wonder if you could elaborate your assertion with an
example. (I don't want to upset Chris Faylor - is this something we should
discuss off the mailing list?)

> (Until every
> package gets repackaged, at a significant time cost to the package
> maintainers).
>
> And as this would be (at best) an interim fix until gcc is corrected, I
> for one do not support implementing this - the time cost would get gcc
> fixed many times over.
>
> Rob

Based on the conversation we've been having, I no longer think this is a
general good idea either. I stated this is a previous email. I agree that
the right solution is to "correct" gcc.

The relocation that I have done merely serves as an interim solution for me.

Jon


--
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/