On 09/03/09 11:46, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> On Mar 9 07:02, Tony Mechelynck wrote:
>> On 08/03/09 10:53, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>>> The -mno-cygwin option was always just a hack. You could have put this
>>> hack into the Linux i686 compiler as well, but why would you? Same for
>>> Cygwin. The -mno-cygwin option will be removed. To build a Mingw
>>> binary, which is logically a cross-build, you will need a
>>> cross-compiler. With the move to the new Cygwin 1.7 release and the
>>> move to the latest gcc-4.x release, the -mno-cygwin option will be
>>> replaced by a mingw cross-compiler which will become part of the distro.
>>>
>>> Does that make sense?
>>>
>>>
>>> Corinna
>>>
>> Yes, it does. Then IIUC the Make_cyg.mak can remain, with a different
>> compiler name (which is already a variable anyway IIUC), possibly a
>> different linker name (since we will need to use a cross-linker IIUC)
>> removing the -mno-cygwin argument to the compiler and the -mwindows
>> argument to the linker, and no other changes than these (which are
>> rather minor) IIUC.
> Looks like YUC. Make_cyg.mak appears to use $(CC) throughout for
> compile and link stage anyway. So it should be sufficient (grain/salt)
> to call
>
> CC=i686-pc-mingw32-gcc make -f Make_cyg.mak
>
> after the -mno-cygwin option has been removed.
>
>
> Corinna
>
I was assuming that the next "version" of Make_cyg.mak would have
i696-pc-mingw32-gcc (instead of gcc) as the default for the CC variable
at the same time as -mno-cygwin and -mwindows would be removed from the
compiler and linker default arguments respectively.
Best regards,
Tony.
--
When the speaker and he to whom he speaks do not understand, that is
metaphysics.
-- Voltaire
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message from the "vim_dev" maillist.
For more information, visit http://www.vim.org/maillist.php
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
