X-Recipient: archive-cygwin AT delorie DOT com
X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.4 required=5.0 	tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_PASS
X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
Message-ID: <49C7D673.7040900@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 23 Mar 2009 18:35:31 +0000
From: Dave Korn <dave DOT korn DOT cygwin AT googlemail DOT com>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.17 (Windows/20080914)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Subject: Re: PING: Deprecation of -mno-cygwin.
References: <49C6DADF DOT 90305 AT gmail DOT com> <20090323093234 DOT GK9322 AT calimero DOT vinschen DOT de> <49C78FA2 DOT 4010209 AT users DOT sourceforge DOT net> <alpine DOT LRH DOT 0 DOT 9999 DOT 0903230939480 DOT 20344 AT honker DOT vgersoft DOT com> <49C794CB DOT 3010305 AT gmail DOT com> <alpine DOT LRH DOT 0 DOT 9999 DOT 0903230956520 DOT 21860 AT honker DOT vgersoft DOT com> <49C79B0B DOT 9010200 AT sbcglobal DOT net> <20090323142702 DOT GB16626 AT ednor DOT casa DOT cgf DOT cx> <loom DOT 20090323T174051-563 AT post DOT gmane DOT org>
In-Reply-To: <loom.20090323T174051-563@post.gmane.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Id: <cygwin.cygwin.com>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Archive: <http://sourceware.org/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post: <mailto:cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help: <mailto:cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs>
Sender: cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com

Eric Backus wrote:
> Christopher Faylor <cgf-use-the-mailinglist-please <at> cygwin.com> writes:

>>> which would put all the confusion to rest.
>> Big DITTO.  As Dave said, the option is already gone...
> 
> Moving to a better solution is great!  But isn't it customary to have some 
> overlap period where the deprecated solution still works (but with ugly 
> warnings) while the new solution is available?

  gcc-3 -mno-cygwin still works just as well (or badly!) as it ever has done,
and will be retained for ever.

  gcc-4 series releases will not support it at all.  As the whole thing is
(still) experimental and explicitly warned to be unstable I don't see the need
to go for a deprecation period.

    cheers,
      DaveK


--
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/