* -mno-cygwin, huh?, wha? [RE: Pbm with ar.h when compiling make-3.80 for mingw] @ 2006-02-15 19:26 Christopher Faylor 2006-02-15 19:31 ` Dave Korn 0 siblings, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread From: Christopher Faylor @ 2006-02-15 19:26 UTC (permalink / raw) To: cygwin-talk 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 ----- ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* RE: -mno-cygwin, huh?, wha? [RE: Pbm with ar.h when compiling make-3.80 for mingw] 2006-02-15 19:26 -mno-cygwin, huh?, wha? [RE: Pbm with ar.h when compiling make-3.80 for mingw] Christopher Faylor @ 2006-02-15 19:31 ` Dave Korn 2006-02-15 19:35 ` Christopher Faylor 0 siblings, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread From: Dave Korn @ 2006-02-15 19:31 UTC (permalink / raw) To: '-mno-cygwin-talk@-mno-cygwin.com' 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.... ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: -mno-cygwin, huh?, wha? [RE: Pbm with ar.h when compiling make-3.80 for mingw] 2006-02-15 19:31 ` Dave Korn @ 2006-02-15 19:35 ` Christopher Faylor 2006-02-15 19:49 ` Dave Korn 0 siblings, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread From: Christopher Faylor @ 2006-02-15 19:35 UTC (permalink / raw) To: The Cygwin-Talk Malingering List 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 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* RE: -mno-cygwin, huh?, wha? [RE: Pbm with ar.h when compiling make-3.80 for mingw] 2006-02-15 19:35 ` Christopher Faylor @ 2006-02-15 19:49 ` Dave Korn 2006-02-15 23:50 ` Igor Peshansky 0 siblings, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread From: Dave Korn @ 2006-02-15 19:49 UTC (permalink / raw) To: 'mu-mu' 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.... ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* RE: -mno-cygwin, huh?, wha? [RE: Pbm with ar.h when compiling make-3.80 for mingw] 2006-02-15 19:49 ` Dave Korn @ 2006-02-15 23:50 ` Igor Peshansky 0 siblings, 0 replies; 5+ messages in thread From: Igor Peshansky @ 2006-02-15 23:50 UTC (permalink / raw) To: The Cygwin-Talk Maiming List 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" ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2006-02-15 23:50 UTC | newest] Thread overview: 5+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed) -- links below jump to the message on this page -- 2006-02-15 19:26 -mno-cygwin, huh?, wha? [RE: Pbm with ar.h when compiling make-3.80 for mingw] Christopher Faylor 2006-02-15 19:31 ` Dave Korn 2006-02-15 19:35 ` Christopher Faylor 2006-02-15 19:49 ` Dave Korn 2006-02-15 23:50 ` Igor Peshansky
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox; as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).