From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Christopher Faylor To: cygwin@cygwin.com Subject: Re: -mno-cygwin Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2001 12:39:00 -0000 Message-id: <20010330153956.C30299@redhat.com> References: <044601c0b929$91291400$0200a8c0@lifelesswks> <20010330110640.B12883@redhat.com> <3AC4C0C3.6C3DD7F9@yahoo.com> <20010330133443.A29516@redhat.com> <3AC4E5F9.E84767B8@yahoo.com> X-SW-Source: 2001-03/msg01858.html On Fri, Mar 30, 2001 at 03:00:57PM -0500, Earnie Boyd wrote: >> Except what's a "msvcrt" or a "crtdll"? They're just strings of characters. >> >> Expecting people to know about these DLLs or any package name other than >> cygwin or (maybe) unix seems like it would still be subject to confusion. > >I expect that know one knows anything except perhaps the creator and >that can be said to be questionable?! ;^) Why doesn't -mno-cygwin mean >that no runtime is supplied at all and I have to supply my own? As you >can see "no-cygwin" is "just a string of characters". It has no more >meaning than msvcrt or crtdll and is in fact less descriptive. Presumably, if someone downloaded the Cygwin package they would be able to infer that an option with "no" and "cygwin" in the name might, just possibly, produce an executable that doesn't rely on cygwin. So, if they stumbled across this option in some mailing list discussion or other they might stand a chance of doing the right thing. The original proposal was that we have a -mmingw switch. That would presume that a person who wanted to produce a binary that didn't rely on cygwin would find -mmingw more intuitive. I don't think that a naive user who stumbles upon a switch named "-mmingw" is going to be more apt to think "Aha! That must produce native windows apps!" This applies to -mmsvcrt and -mcrtdll as well. What's a msv? What's a crt? Why would I care? If you are proposing that it would be a nice convenience to have these options for people who know what they mean, I certainly wouldn't argue. I just don't see how you can assert that they would make things easier to understand. The bottom line is that, IMO, if you have to do research to figure out the right option to use, then it really doesn't matter all that much what the option is called. Given this, IMO, the one thing that does make sense, is to stick with what has historically been used. For this reason, I think that nuking -mno-cygwin is apt to cause more confusion than it saves. cgf P.S. Btw, -mcygwin is a valid switch. -- Want to unsubscribe from this list? Check out: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple