Re: [boost] wgcc 2.0 RC1 released

From: Russell Mok (rmok_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-09-19 15:42:13

I have been using interix for roughly 2 years, so I am 
definitely interested in wgcc (not RC1 though).

There were a few reasons for me to choose interix over 
Cygwin. Licensing/cost was one. Tools not expecting "\r\n" 
at the end of line or '\' as root directory (including many 
in-house scripts) also worked under interix with minimal 
porting efforts. Besides, interix is on top of the windows 
kernel, not win32 API. Hence it should be 'lighter' than Cygwin.

On the other hand, interix is not available on the 'Home' 
edition of windows.

David Abrahams wrote:
> 
> 
> "Duft Markus" <Markus.Duft_at_[hidden]> writes:
> 
>  > Hi again!
>  > 
>  > For all interested in native Windows binaries built with Autotools and
>  > mnay other interesting things:
> 
> I'm not sure whether this is on-topic for Boost; it seems of somewhat
> borderline relevance.  However, now that you've started the thread,
> one obvious question leaps to mind: why would anyone want to use wgcc
> in lieu of Cygwin or MinGW gcc?
> 
> -- 
> Dave Abrahams
> Boost Consulting
> www.boost-consulting.com
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Unsubscribe & other changes: 
> http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
>