-mno-cygwin, huh?, wha? [RE: Pbm with ar.h when compiling make-3.80 for mingw]

-mno-cygwin, huh?, wha? [RE: Pbm with ar.h when compiling make-3.80 for mingw]

[Christopher Faylor]

Thanks, Dave, for your continued vigilance.

Is there something (besides hippos) in the water or something?  We seem
to be getting an increased number of non-cygwin "problem reports"
recently.

cgf

----- Forwarded message from Dave Korn -----

From: Dave Korn
To: cygwin
Subject: RE: Pbm with ar.h when compiling make-3.80 for mingw
Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2006 18:50:42 -0000

On 15 February 2006 18:42, Xavier Marichal wrote:

> Hi!
> 
> To make a long story short, I want to re-build make-3.80 for mingw/msys
> usage because I encounter some problems with the mingw distribution...

  WTF does the mingw version of make have to with cygwin?

> After downloading the sources fro gnu, I launched ./configure.
> Then, in-line with the recommendations of
> http://www.delorie.com/howto/cygwin/mno-cygwin-howto.html, I did modify
> the resulting Makefile in the following way:
> CFLAGS = -g -O2 -mno-cygwin

  What part of "NO CYGWIN" don't you get?

> What shall I do then? 

  Talk to the MinGW hand^Wlist, because the cygwin face-aint-listening?

    cheers,
      DaveK
-- 
Can't think of a witty .sigline today....

----- End forwarded message -----

RE: -mno-cygwin, huh?, wha? [RE: Pbm with ar.h when compiling make-3.80 for mingw]

[Dave Korn]

On 15 February 2006 19:27, Christopher Faylor wrote:

> Thanks, Dave, for your continued vigilance.
> 
> Is there something (besides hippos) in the water or something?  We seem
> to be getting an increased number of non-cygwin "problem reports"
> recently.
> 
> cgf


  Yeh, I've noticed, the situation looks real bad.


  In fact you might even say it mings!


<baba-dum-tissssh!>

    cheers,
      DaveK
-- 
Can't think of a witty .sigline today....

Re: -mno-cygwin, huh?, wha? [RE: Pbm with ar.h when compiling make-3.80 for mingw]

[Christopher Faylor]

On Wed, Feb 15, 2006 at 07:31:38PM -0000, Dave Korn wrote:
>On 15 February 2006 19:27, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>>Thanks, Dave, for your continued vigilance.
>>
>>Is there something (besides hippos) in the water or something?  We seem
>>to be getting an increased number of non-cygwin "problem reports"
>>recently.
>
>
>Yeh, I've noticed, the situation looks real bad.
>
>In fact you might even say it mings!

I wonder if it would matters at all if we just got rid of the
-mno-cygwin option entirely.  I don't mind making a mingw
"cross-compiler" part of the requirement for building cygwin and maybe
it would make the issue really clear.

cgf

RE: -mno-cygwin, huh?, wha? [RE: Pbm with ar.h when compiling make-3.80 for mingw]

[Dave Korn]

On 15 February 2006 19:35, Christopher Faylor wrote:

> On Wed, Feb 15, 2006 at 07:31:38PM -0000, Dave Korn wrote:
>> On 15 February 2006 19:27, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>>> Thanks, Dave, for your continued vigilance.
>>> 
>>> Is there something (besides hippos) in the water or something?  We seem
>>> to be getting an increased number of non-cygwin "problem reports"
>>> recently.
>> 
>> 
>> Yeh, I've noticed, the situation looks real bad.
>> 
>> In fact you might even say it mings!
> 
> I wonder if it would matters at all if we just got rid of the
> -mno-cygwin option entirely.  I don't mind making a mingw
> "cross-compiler" part of the requirement for building cygwin and maybe
> it would make the issue really clear.
> 
> cgf


  Nah, let's just hide it.  Rename it
"-mno-cygwin-but-i-would-like-a-hippo-please-and-can-i-have-that-with-cheese-t
o-go-and-by-the-way-i-really-promise-not-to-mail-the-cygwin-list-with-any-supp
ort-request-as-a-result-of-doing-whatever-it-is-i'm-doing-right-now".


    cheers,
      DaveK
-- 
Can't think of a witty .sigline today....

RE: -mno-cygwin, huh?, wha? [RE: Pbm with ar.h when compiling make-3.80 for mingw]

[Igor Peshansky]

On Wed, 15 Feb 2006, Dave Korn wrote:

> On 15 February 2006 19:35, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Feb 15, 2006 at 07:31:38PM -0000, Dave Korn wrote:
> >> On 15 February 2006 19:27, Christopher Faylor wrote:
> >>> Thanks, Dave, for your continued vigilance.
> >>>
> >>> Is there something (besides hippos) in the water or something?  We seem
> >>> to be getting an increased number of non-cygwin "problem reports"
> >>> recently.
> >>
> >> Yeh, I've noticed, the situation looks real bad.
> >>
> >> In fact you might even say it mings!
> >
> > I wonder if it would matters at all if we just got rid of the
> > -mno-cygwin option entirely.  I don't mind making a mingw
> > "cross-compiler" part of the requirement for building cygwin and maybe
> > it would make the issue really clear.
>
>   Nah, let's just hide it.  Rename it
> "-mno-cygwin-but-i-would-like-a-hippo-please-and-can-i-have-that-with-cheese-to-go-and-by-the-way-i-really-promise-not-to-mail-the-cygwin-list-with-any-support-request-as-a-result-of-doing-whatever-it-is-i'm-doing-right-now".

Hippo steak, mmm-mmm...  BTW, I can just *see* people popping up with
complaints about how this completely breaks their nmake build files due to
command line length limitations...

Seriously, though -- why not simply rename it in some way that makes it
clear this is a MinGW cross-compiler?  Something like "-mcross-mingw32",
or even make it "--target=i686-pc-mingw32"?
	Igor
-- 
				http://cs.nyu.edu/~pechtcha/
      |\      _,,,---,,_	    pechtcha@cs.nyu.edu | igor@watson.ibm.com
ZZZzz /,`.-'`'    -.  ;-;;,_		Igor Peshansky, Ph.D. (name changed!)
     |,4-  ) )-,_. ,\ (  `'-'		old name: Igor Pechtchanski
    '---''(_/--'  `-'\_) fL	a.k.a JaguaR-R-R-r-r-r-.-.-.  Meow!

"Las! je suis sot... -Mais non, tu ne l'es pas, puisque tu t'en rends compte."
"But no -- you are no fool; you call yourself a fool, there's proof enough in
that!" -- Rostand, "Cyrano de Bergerac"