This is the mail archive of the
cygwin@sourceware.cygnus.com
mailing list for the Cygwin project.
Re: CygUtils Version of zip (and Symlinks)
- To: "Parker, Ron" <rdparker at butlermfg dot com>
- Subject: Re: CygUtils Version of zip (and Symlinks)
- From: Charles Wilson <cwilson at ece dot gatech dot edu>
- Date: Thu, 25 May 2000 12:02:26 -0400
- CC: Cosmin Truta <cosmin at cs dot toronto dot edu>, Jason Tishler <Jason dot Tishler at dothill dot com>, cygwin at sourceware dot cygnus dot com
- References: <200005251558.LAA05624@mail.ee.gatech.edu>
"Parker, Ron" wrote:
>
> > > When you get right down to it, cygwin is NOT windows. It
> > does everything
> > > it can to make windows look like Unix, so that apps can run
> > *as if they
> > > were on unix* with little or no changes. So, by that logic,
> > > cygwin-zip/unzip =should= be built as unix-ish apps, not windows-ish
> > > ones.
> >
> > Maybe you are right.
> > I personally look at gcc as a free alternative for a good
> > Win32 compiler,
> > but I agree that cygwin is a "Unix on Win" and maybe most of
> > the people
> > look at it that way.
>
> ISTM that the right behavior would be for cygwin to build a UNIX-ish (un)zip
> and for mingw to build a Windows style program. As already pointed out
> cygwin should be thought of as "Unix on Win" and IMO mingw should be thought
> of as "as a free alternative for a good Win32 compiler".
Just to respond to a small part of this post:
mingw == 'free alternative for a good Win32 compiler'
cygwin-gcc -mno-cygwin == 'another free alternative for a good Win32
compiler'
cygwin-gcc -mno-cygwin != mingw
I'm not sure how this affects your argument below, but the difference
between cygwin-gcc -mno-cygwin and mingw does need to be considered.
--Chuck
>
> I realize that cygwin and mingw are both supported by the same compiler, but
> supplying -mno-cygwin causes gcc to switch from cygwin to mingw behavior and
> __MINGW32__ becomes defined.
>
> This may be more a question for cygwin-developers, but I hate crossposts and
> know most readers of that list at least review this one. So, wouldn't it be
> appropriate when compiling without -mno-cygwin for the specs file to define
> "unix", "UNIX" and similar "standard" defines? They seem to be checked for
> in newlib, zlib, X11, and many other sources?
>
> Yes I know I can make this change in my local sources, but I prefer to work
> with standard sources and now seemed a good time to bring it up. I have
> been wondering about it for some time.
--
Want to unsubscribe from this list?
Send a message to cygwin-unsubscribe@sourceware.cygnus.com