Re: Gcc 3.2 -mno-cygwin

Re: Gcc 3.2 -mno-cygwin

[Paul G.]

> Redirecting this, too. 
>  
> On Sun, Dec 15, 2002 at 03:18:00PM -0800, Paul G. wrote: 
> >Well, if your Win32 system doesn't support links (NT4 shortcuts), this 
> >isn't really surprising. 
>  
> Did you actually read this email or were you just scanning for keywords 
> like the word "link"? 

	Heh, nice bait...but I won't bite...seems like you're not in a good mood right now... 

>  
> >NT4 has a shortcut/link capabilities that Me/Win9x do not.  The same 
> >capability is built-in to Win2k and WinXP (ie.  Pro -- can't speak for 
> >Home version -- indications, however, are that XP Home also does not 
> >support the shortcut/link capabilities that XP Pro does). 
>  
> For the record: 1) Cygwin handles symlinks just fine and 2) this has 
> nothing to do with symlinks. 

	I know that, you know that.  I am sure you have noticed that there are shortcut files being  
used in the nt4 environment sans .lnk, right?  (absolute reference: "d:\cygwin\usr\i686-pc- 
mingw32"). 

	Had it occurred to anyone that maybe the XP version of the NT4 .lnk files ("shortcuts")  
might not be identical? 

	One thing is certain, the shortcut files for Win9x/Me are not the same as the shortcut  
files used for NT4.  That might indicate a similar problem in terms of XP shortcuts (Pro vs.  
Home) when compared with NT4 shortcuts.  Nope, not saying that there is a similar problem  
between NT4 and XP (Pro or Home).  Only saying that it is a possibility. 

	Now, perhaps, someone else on this list will be able to determine if the shortcut files for  
XP Home, XP Pro and NT4 are in fact identical or not.  I can not since I do not have XP  
(Home or Pro). 

>  
> >It sounds like you have come up with a work around, but it is not 
> >recommended to hack cygwin like that as it tends to make it unreliable. 
>  
> He didn't actually have a workaround.  It wasn't working. 

	I know that, you know that. 

	If it were working, he would not have reported a problem in the first place, right?  Clearly  
he "thought" it was a workaround.  You and I both know that it was not working... 

	For the record then, I was simply stating a fact, or, if you will, what is typically "common  
sense" to me...do not mess with specs or "path' related stuff, etc. unless you are d*mn sure  
you know what the h*ll you are doing.  Correct? 

>  
> >Solution?  Upgrade OS or download and install Msys (Cygwin-like, 
> >actually a fork of Cygwin, which does not depend on the cygwin .dll). 
> >Caveat, Mingw does not support a great deal of posix, niether does 
> >Msys...yet. 
>  
> Suggesting that someone run something else to solve a cygwin 
> installation problem is not appropriate.  Since you clearly don't 
> understand how cygwin's gcc works, please don't offer advice on solving 
> problems.  You're just going to end up confusing people. 

	Where did he ever say it was an installation problem? 

	From the original post that I saw from the person: 

	 
> Someone broke GCC somewhere.... 
>  
> echo 'int main( void ) { return 1; }' >test.c 
> gcc -mno-cygwin -c test.c 
>  
> results:  
> gcc: installation problem, cannot exec `cc1': No such file or directory 

	meaning:  gcc could not find cc1.exe. 

	Anyone who has any idea as to how Cygwin gcc works knows that under normal  
installation, within the following directory: 

	mycygwinroot/lib/gcc-lib/i686-pc-cygwin/3.2 

	is where you will find cc1.exe. 

	cc1.exe does not exist under any other directory. 

	The same folks, ie. those who have any idea as to "how" Cygwin gcc works also knows  
that gcc.exe is defined within the "mycygwinroot/bin".  gcc.exe does not exist anywhere else  
(possible exception: symlink). 

(I really don't think I need to say, yet again, "you know this.  I know this.") 

	Now, why else might the search for cc1.exe fail if specs is left alone and nothing is done  
to change the pathing sequence? 
	  
>  
> there is definatly no cc1 with gcc 3.2 (not sure where it went, but...) 

	This is patently untrue, except possibly on his system. 

	Original poster of this rather noisome thread did not even note why he was trying to use - 
mno-cygwin in the first place.  To paraphrase a certain illustrious comrade: 

"provide.. useful details (cygcheck output would be nice)..." 

	doing so, on the part of the questioner (as OT and offlist as the posters original email  
was) would have at least narrowed the scope of the problem as well as provide details to  
determine if there was even a problem to begin with, right? 
	 
>  
> It seems like neither you or Jim is approaching this from the direction 
> of "It seems to be working for other people.  I wonder what could be 
> wrong with this installation". 

	My assumption is that some install is always working, and any problems that do come up  
are typically directly contributable to what that same illustrious comrade I referenced earlier  
also said in another post, "cockpit error". 

>  Instead, Jim is ripping his installation 
> apart under the assumption that everything is broken and (apparently) 
> he's the first person to notice it and you're misreading his email and 
> suggesting that he run something else without clearly understanding what 
> the problem could be. 
>  
> I'll say it again:  Install the gcc-mingw package.  It's really simple. 
> It's so simple that it is the default for gcc installation. 

	You know that and I know that. 

	Does everyone know, however, what exactly is necessary for building c language apps  
that do not rely on Cygwin .dll?  At least one person doesn't, otherwise this thread wouldn't  
even be here right now, would it? 

	People are niether as dumb or as smart as most people like to believe that they are.  It is  
nice, however, if you can assume that someone is as smart as you are when it comes to  
Cygwin, right? 

	Unfortunately, most people do not know anywhere near as much as my illustrious  
comrade does when it comes to Cygwin. 

>  
> Anyway, if this discussion really needs to be continued.  It should be 
> continued in the cygwin mailing list. 

	Lo' and behold, here we are! ;-) 

	Paul G. 
>  
> cgf 

--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting:         http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/

Re: Gcc 3.2 -mno-cygwin

[Christopher Faylor]

On Mon, Dec 16, 2002 at 09:07:57PM -0800, Paul G. wrote:
>> Redirecting this, too. 
>>  
>> On Sun, Dec 15, 2002 at 03:18:00PM -0800, Paul G. wrote: 
>> >Well, if your Win32 system doesn't support links (NT4 shortcuts), this 
>> >isn't really surprising. 
>>  
>> Did you actually read this email or were you just scanning for keywords 
>> like the word "link"? 
>
>Heh, nice bait...but I won't bite...seems like you're not in a good
>mood right now...

Funny how your email does that to me.

To recap and elucidate:

1) This is not a shortcut problem.  If it was the mailing list would be
flooded with complaints.

2) setup.exe produces old-style cygwin shortcuts.

3) The user is allowed to assume that -mno-cygwin works fine.  It should
be working much better in gcc 3.2 than it ever has before.

4) You offered faulty advice when you the correct advice was to install
the gcc-mingw package.  Please don't go on the "you know that, I know that"
riff when you never even suggested "that".

5) Please do not suggest using other packages as a way to solve cygwin
problems.

6) workaround: A temporary kluge used to bypass, mask or otherwise avoid
a bug or misfeature in some system.
When something is not working you can't claim a workaround.

That's it for me.
cgf

--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting:         http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/

Re: Gcc 3.2 -mno-cygwin

[Paul G.]

> On Mon, Dec 16, 2002 at 09:07:57PM -0800, Paul G. wrote:
> >> Redirecting this, too. 
> >>  
> >> On Sun, Dec 15, 2002 at 03:18:00PM -0800, Paul G. wrote: 
> >> >Well, if your Win32 system doesn't support links (NT4 shortcuts), this 
> >> >isn't really surprising. 
> >>  
> >> Did you actually read this email or were you just scanning for keywords 
> >> like the word "link"? 
> >
> >Heh, nice bait...but I won't bite...seems like you're not in a good
> >mood right now...
> 
> Funny how your email does that to me.
> 
> To recap and elucidate:
> 
> 1) This is not a shortcut problem.  If it was the mailing list would be
> flooded with complaints.
> 
> 2) setup.exe produces old-style cygwin shortcuts.
> 
> 3) The user is allowed to assume that -mno-cygwin works fine.  It should
> be working much better in gcc 3.2 than it ever has before.
> 
> 4) You offered faulty advice when you the correct advice was to install
> the gcc-mingw package.  Please don't go on the "you know that, I know that"
> riff when you never even suggested "that".

	What would have been the point to repeat something that was already known by you, at 
the very least?  What was it I heard about "me toos"?  Perhaps it is that there is more value 
for some to pointing out falings of others rather than solutions for everyone...?

> 
> 5) Please do not suggest using other packages as a way to solve cygwin
> problems.

	Fair enough, for as long as -mno-cygwin switch, or use thereof, is not being 
deprecated...if, however, -mno-cygwin is being deprecated or the use thereof is being 
"officially" deprecated, then what's the point in talking about it in the first place?

> 
> 6) workaround: A temporary kluge used to bypass, mask or otherwise avoid
> a bug or misfeature in some system.

	I know how you hate it when people tell you they know something and you think they do 
not...even so, I have to say it again...you know that and I know that ("that", in this case being 
the "definition of a workaround").

> When something is not working you can't claim a workaround.

	Do I need to say "duh"?  Or would it be better to say, "You know that and I know that, 
therefore it is not an issue here and in fact we do agree" even if you may prefer to believe 
that I do not know or agree with you that "when something is _not_ working you _can't_ 
claim (it as) a (valid) workaround."...?

		Paul G.

--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting:         http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/

Re: Gcc 3.2 -mno-cygwin

[Christopher Faylor]

On Thu, Dec 19, 2002 at 08:17:48PM -0800, Paul G. wrote:
>...for as long as -mno-cygwin switch, or use thereof, is not being
>deprecated...if, however, -mno-cygwin is being deprecated or the use
>thereof is being "officially" deprecated, then what's the point in
>talking about it in the first place?

-mno-cygwin is not deprecated.  It has never been deprecated and it is
not going to be deprecated.

cgf

--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting:         http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/

Re: Gcc 3.2 -mno-cygwin

[Paul G.]

Thank you.

> On Thu, Dec 19, 2002 at 08:17:48PM -0800, Paul G. wrote:
> >...for as long as -mno-cygwin switch, or use thereof, is not being
> >deprecated...if, however, -mno-cygwin is being deprecated or the use
> >thereof is being "officially" deprecated, then what's the point in
> >talking about it in the first place?
> 
> -mno-cygwin is not deprecated.  It has never been deprecated and it is
> not going to be deprecated.
> 
> cgf
> 
> --
> Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
> Bug reporting:         http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
> Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
> FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/
> 



--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting:         http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/

Re: Gcc 3.2 -mno-cygwin

[lhall]

Since I was one of the responders to your original inquiry, I 
take exception to the charaterization you give below of the 
responses you received.  I quite clearly stated that I could 
reproduce your issue on 1 machine (but not others) despite the 
fact I had the "gcc-mingw" package installed there.  Since this didn't
make much sense to me, I reran setup and reinstalled the "gcc-mingw"
package.  This fixed the problem for me.  As I recall, I recommended
that you reinstall the "gcc-mingw" if you did indeed have it 
installed but were experiencing this problem.  If that's assessing
blame (i.e. who's "fault" it is that you're having this problem) in
your eyes, I'll offer you an apology if that helps you put this 
issue behind you.  

However, for anyone else reading this thread now or in the future, 
I think it's important to clearly state that problems of this type
are installation specific and can be remedied by following the advice
to install/reinstall the "gcc-mingw" package.  Certainly though if you
see this issue and can provide any specific details that would help 
the rest of us understand how it arose, we'd be glad to hear about it.
Currently, the "gcc-mingw" is a dependency of the "gcc" package so it
will be installed by default with gcc in a normal install unless the 
user has requested otherwise.

Larry


Original Message:
-----------------
From: Jim jbuckeyne@greater.net
Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2002 07:58:03 -0800
To: cygwin@cygwin.com
Subject: Re: Gcc 3.2 -mno-cygwin




> I think you misunderstand. "It adds the "-mno-cygwin" functionality to the
> standard gcc package."
Oh certainly I understood since 2 days ago I started a thread that such
functionality was broken, and everyone said 'well certainly it's something
you have misconfigured' when it wasn't my fault at all.

> is just the description of what the gcc-mingw package does. Its what it's
> always done. Its not a new feature, or am i missing something ?
>



--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting:         http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/


--------------------------------------------------------------------
mail2web - Check your email from the web at
http://mail2web.com/ .



--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting:         http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/

Re: Gcc 3.2 -mno-cygwin

[Jim]

> I think you misunderstand. "It adds the "-mno-cygwin" functionality to the
> standard gcc package."
Oh certainly I understood since 2 days ago I started a thread that such
functionality was broken, and everyone said 'well certainly it's something
you have misconfigured' when it wasn't my fault at all.

> is just the description of what the gcc-mingw package does. Its what it's
> always done. Its not a new feature, or am i missing something ?
>



--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting:         http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/

Re: Gcc 3.2 -mno-cygwin

[Christopher Faylor]

On Tue, Dec 17, 2002 at 02:55:32PM -0000, Vince Hoffman wrote:
>I think you misunderstand. "It adds the "-mno-cygwin" functionality to the
>standard gcc package."
>is just the description of what the gcc-mingw package does. Its what it's
>always done. Its not a new feature, or am i missing something ?

You're not missing anything.  I suggested installing the gcc-mingw package.
Jim noticed that I released a new version of gcc-mingw (amidst a bunch of
other packages) and erroneously thought that his problem was somehow related
to my release.

I do admit that the discussion of gcc-mingw jogged my memory that I had
a new version to release, so I released it.  AFAIK it did not in any way
address any of the problems he was seeing.  As far as I can tell he just
didn't have the package installed.  Even the small amount of detail that
he provided seemed to verify this fact.

I guess we'll never know now.

cgf

--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting:         http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/

RE: Gcc 3.2 -mno-cygwin

[Vince Hoffman]

I think you misunderstand. "It adds the "-mno-cygwin" functionality to the
standard gcc package."
is just the description of what the gcc-mingw package does. Its what it's
always done. Its not a new feature, or am i missing something ?


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jim [mailto:jbuckeyne@greater.net]
> Sent: 17 December 2002 14:41
> To: cygwin-apps; cygwin@cygwin.com
> Subject: Re: Gcc 3.2 -mno-cygwin
> 
> 
>       20:45 [ANNOUNCEMENT] Updated: gcc-mingw-20020817-3
> 
> 
> Several hours after I posted a notice of the problem the 
> above was posted...
> in it's message content is : It adds the "-mno-cygwin"
> functionality to the standard gcc package.
> 
> 
> So yeah - it was all totally my fault.  and Gosh - I guess it 
> WAS working
> for everyone else.
> 
> not.
> 
> Jim.
> 
> 
> --
> Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
> Bug reporting:         http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
> Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
> FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/
> 

--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting:         http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/

Re: Gcc 3.2 -mno-cygwin

[Jim]

      20:45 [ANNOUNCEMENT] Updated: gcc-mingw-20020817-3


Several hours after I posted a notice of the problem the above was posted...
in it's message content is : It adds the "-mno-cygwin"
functionality to the standard gcc package.


So yeah - it was all totally my fault.  and Gosh - I guess it WAS working
for everyone else.

not.

Jim.


--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting:         http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/

Re: Gcc 3.2 -mno-cygwin

[Larry Hall (RFK Partners, Inc)]

At 06:27 PM 12/15/2002, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>On Sun, Dec 15, 2002 at 11:15:42AM -0800, Jim wrote:
> >Someone broke GCC somewhere....
> >
> >echo 'int main( void ) { return 1; }' >test.c
> >gcc -mno-cygwin -c test.c
> >
> >results: 
> >gcc: installation problem, cannot exec `cc1': No such file or directory
> >
> >there is definatly no cc1 with gcc 3.2 (not sure where it went, but...)
> >
> >- off to roll back to 2.95.3 or whatever...
>
>This is a cockpit error which has nothing to do with gcc packaging.
>Use the cygwin mailing list for this.  I've redirected this there.
>
>The short answer, however, is that you apparently don't have the
>gcc-mingw package installed, for some reason.  setup.exe should install
>this automatically when you install gcc.  I have no idea why this is not
>doing so in this case.



Of course, Chris is right about this although I found I could reproduce the
problem reported even with the gcc-mingw package installed.  However, 
rerunning setup and reinstalling this package resolved the issue.  
Unfortunately, I can't explain why this should be necessary in the first
place.  But I offer it as a resolution for anyone else who might see this 
despite having gcc-mingw installed.


Larry Hall                              lhall@rfk.com
RFK Partners, Inc.                      http://www.rfk.com
838 Washington Street                   (508) 893-9779 - RFK Office
Holliston, MA 01746                     (508) 893-9889 - FAX


--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting:         http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/

Re: Gcc 3.2 -mno-cygwin

[Christopher Faylor]

Redirecting this, too.

On Sun, Dec 15, 2002 at 03:18:00PM -0800, Paul G. wrote:
>Well, if your Win32 system doesn't support links (NT4 shortcuts), this
>isn't really surprising.

Did you actually read this email or were you just scanning for keywords
like the word "link"?

>NT4 has a shortcut/link capabilities that Me/Win9x do not.  The same
>capability is built-in to Win2k and WinXP (ie.  Pro -- can't speak for
>Home version -- indications, however, are that XP Home also does not
>support the shortcut/link capabilities that XP Pro does).

For the record: 1) Cygwin handles symlinks just fine and 2) this has
nothing to do with symlinks.

>It sounds like you have come up with a work around, but it is not
>recommended to hack cygwin like that as it tends to make it unreliable.

He didn't actually have a workaround.  It wasn't working.

>Solution?  Upgrade OS or download and install Msys (Cygwin-like,
>actually a fork of Cygwin, which does not depend on the cygwin .dll).
>Caveat, Mingw does not support a great deal of posix, niether does
>Msys...yet.

Suggesting that someone run something else to solve a cygwin
installation problem is not appropriate.  Since you clearly don't
understand how cygwin's gcc works, please don't offer advice on solving
problems.  You're just going to end up confusing people.

It seems like neither you or Jim is approaching this from the direction
of "It seems to be working for other people.  I wonder what could be
wrong with this installation".  Instead, Jim is ripping his installation
apart under the assumption that everything is broken and (apparently)
he's the first person to notice it and you're misreading his email and
suggesting that he run something else without clearly understanding what
the problem could be.

I'll say it again:  Install the gcc-mingw package.  It's really simple.
It's so simple that it is the default for gcc installation.

Anyway, if this discussion really needs to be continued.  It should be
continued in the cygwin mailing list.

cgf

--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting:         http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/

Re: Gcc 3.2 -mno-cygwin

[Christopher Faylor]

On Sun, Dec 15, 2002 at 11:15:42AM -0800, Jim wrote:
>Someone broke GCC somewhere....
>
>echo 'int main( void ) { return 1; }' >test.c
>gcc -mno-cygwin -c test.c
>
>results: 
>gcc: installation problem, cannot exec `cc1': No such file or directory
>
>there is definatly no cc1 with gcc 3.2 (not sure where it went, but...)
>
>- off to roll back to 2.95.3 or whatever...

This is a cockpit error which has nothing to do with gcc packaging.
Use the cygwin mailing list for this.  I've redirected this there.

The short answer, however, is that you apparently don't have the
gcc-mingw package installed, for some reason.  setup.exe should install
this automatically when you install gcc.  I have no idea why this is not
doing so in this case.

--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting:         http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/