I wrote
> [Summary: Cygwin is good to compile programs on win32 with minimal
> porting effort, but a stable port should use MinGW]
replace cygwin by "cygwin's posix runtime environment" and MinGW by
"MinGW's or -mno-cygwin's msvcrt environment" and you get what I meant.
I never noticed that it was that misleading.
Christopher Faylor schrieb:
> I don't mind people being excited about MinGW but it doesn't have to be
> at the expense of Cygwin. A "stable port" of a windows-only application
> could easily be maintained with Cygwin's gcc. Implying that cygwin
> produces unstable code is not necessary.
Yes, but I don't think that a stable _port_ to Windows should use the
cygwin POSIX _runtime_ environment. A port should use -mno-cygwin or
MinGW runtime environment.
Do we agree on that point?
> I understand and respect that there are good reasons to use MinGW but
> promoting urban myths about cygwin is not a good way to promote the
> project.
Sorry. I never said that cygwin's gcc is incapable of producing correct
code (if used properly). But as a separate point: One year ago I made
such bad experience with -mno-cygwin that I never even considered using
it again [I need C++ and libtool]. (See separate mail)
Christof
_______________________________________________
Dia-list mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/dia-list
