On 28 April 2006 15:04, Lloyd Wood wrote: [most of what I want to say is in the response I just sent before I just received this reply, so I'm only going to reiterate one single *very* important point].
> Clearer, and backwardly compatible, would be a gcc version report of > something like: > gcc version 3.4.4 (cygwin special) (MinGW, gdc 0.12, using dmd 0.125) > Saying 'ming' instead of 'MinGW' is a deliberately misleading > distraction. No, it's a linguistic constuct called a "contraction". You saw "cyg" without the "win" and didn't complain about that. > I was deliberately misinformed by gcc -v. No, you misinformed yourself by your false assumptions about the nature of gcc -v. > __CYGWIN__ is defined for gcc; gcc -v should report 'cygwin special'. > I do not recommend changing the environment to __CYGMING__ to match > in a further attempt at humour. > > If you want people to use the information you provide rationally, do > not colour that information with irrational attempts at humour to > provide misinformation that causes doubt. > > We need to trust the output of gcc -v. No, this is completely wrong and absolutely not what you want to do. The output of "gcc -v" is a human-readable summary of various internal information which can be obtained by more reliable means for programmatic use. Your attempt to indirectly deduce the same info from a freeform text string presupposes many assumptions that simply do not hold, and therefore is doomed to incorrectness. cheers, DaveK -- Can't think of a witty .sigline today.... -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/