Message-Id: <7.0.1.0.0.20060428165427.059e7e88@surrey.ac.uk>
Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2006 17:07:21 +0100
To: "Williams, Gerald S \(Jerry\)" <gsw@agere.com>
From: Lloyd Wood <L.Wood@surrey.ac.uk>
Subject: RE: Geomview & Cygwin setup
Cc: <cygwin@cygwin.com>
In-Reply-To: <4C89134832705D4D85A6CD2EBF38AE0F3DFFCD@PAUMAILU03.ags.ager  e.com>
References: <4C89134832705D4D85A6CD2EBF38AE0F3DFFCD@PAUMAILU03.ags.agere.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help@cygwin.com; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Sender: cygwin-owner@cygwin.com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin@cygwin.com

At Friday 2006-04-28 11:45 -0400, Williams, Gerald S \(Jerry\) wrote:
>If you need to find out what gcc is targeting, perhaps you should
>use "-dumpmachine" instead.
>
>  $ gcc -dumpmachine
>  i686-pc-cygwin
>  $ gcc -dumpmachine -mno-cygwin
>  i686-pc-mingw32

Having identification behaviour dependent on a cygwin-specific flag 
like this is.. insane. Doing the former (which is what you'd expect) 
makes you none the wiser about mingw. The latter is a special case 
where you already have some idea what the target may be, so why would 
you issue the command? Begs the question.


>Lloyd Wood wrote:
> > cygming, not cygwin? ('ming' is a strong insult in the UK. I get
> > the impression the writer doesn't like cygwin.)
>
>You think that's bad? When the company I was working for spun off
>from AT&T, they decided to name themselves "loo scent". :-)

Ah, the famous brown ring of quality, which, alas, won't exist for much longer.

cheers,

L.

--
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/