Christopher Faylor wrote:
>
> 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.
>
I agree with this. It is one of the reasons I haven't lobbied for a
change.
> cgf
>
> P.S. Btw, -mcygwin is a valid switch.
>
I knew this too.
Earnie.
_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
--
Want to unsubscribe from this list?
Check out: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple