I must admit, that i never used gdb on cygwin, but it was a problem in my company, before i came in. I'm only there for porting from unix to win32, and since all other solutions didn't fit, i wrote wgcc. This doesn't meen that other solutions are bad or something, it's just that we have tons of code (our "toolsbox" consists of 115 projects, and needs about 7 hours to build on my computer - and this is just the basis of our real projects) which need to be built without much porting effort, or i would go crazy. On the other hand debugging in visual studio is very comfortable. We all debugged in gdb, and on unix platforms, it will still stay standard (haha, there's nothing else i think, that could be used there ;o)), but on windows platforms, visual studio is simply *better*. At least thats my (and i think *our*, at the company) opinion. With MinGW, there is the debug info problem left over, everything else should be ok there as far as i know. MinGW has still benefits over wgcc too, for example it understands gcc's specialities, like __attribute__ or whatever... Wgcc on the other hand understands microsofts specialities, and may produce faster code, but i never profiled it until now. Cheers, Markus -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: boost-bounces@lists.boost.org [mailto:boost-bounces@lists.boost.org] Im Auftrag von Rene Rivera Gesendet: Dienstag, 19. September 2006 19:00 An: boost@lists.boost.org Betreff: Re: [boost] wgcc 2.0 RC1 released David Abrahams wrote:
"Duft Markus" <Markus.Duft@salomon.at> writes:
The second thing is, that resulting executables depend on msvcrt.lib and are therefore binary compatible with nearly everything ;o) on windows.
That's also true of MinGW, right?
Yes.
When using gcc it has it's own libc (on interix gcc is a interix build, and has really not much to do with windows.... ;o//) and one can't link those things together, so in gcc built binaries one can _not_ use the win32 API which, on windows, is not really desireable.
Huh? Not so; I have used the win32 API even through cygwin GCC. And then there's gcc -mno-cygwin.
FYI; All the -mno-cygwin option does it compile with the MinGW version of the compiler. -- -- Grafik - Don't Assume Anything -- Redshift Software, Inc. - http://redshift-software.com -- rrivera/acm.org - grafik/redshift-software.com -- 102708583/icq - grafikrobot/aim - grafikrobot/yahoo _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
"Duft Markus" <Markus.Duft@salomon.at> writes:
I must admit, that i never used gdb on cygwin, but it was a problem in my company, before i came in. I'm only there for porting from unix to win32, and since all other solutions didn't fit, i wrote wgcc. This doesn't meen that other solutions are bad or something, it's just that we have tons of code (our "toolsbox" consists of 115 projects, and needs about 7 hours to build on my computer - and this is just the basis of our real projects) which need to be built without much porting effort, or i would go crazy. On the other hand debugging in visual studio is very comfortable. We all debugged in gdb, and on unix platforms, it will still stay standard (haha, there's nothing else i think, that could be used there ;o)), but on windows platforms, visual studio is simply *better*.
Very true. I'm just not sure it's enough better to justify the effort you've gone to...but it's your party!
At least thats my (and i think *our*, at the company) opinion. With MinGW, there is the debug info problem left over,
What debug info problem? -- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting www.boost-consulting.com
<snip out-of-topic discussion about gdb vs. Visual Studio debugging> Mr. Abrahams, I am a bit astonished by your continuing this out-of-topic thread. I want the old focused Dave back ;-) /David .--------------------------------------------. | http://blog.davber.com = blah, blah , blah | --------------------------------------------
participants (4)
-
David Abrahams -
David Bergman -
Deane Yang -
Duft Markus