From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-01-14 20:42:58
"Raoul Gough" <raoulgough_at_[hidden]> writes:
> "David Abrahams" <dave_at_[hidden]> wrote in message
>> "Raoul Gough" <raoulgough_at_[hidden]> writes:
>> > I've had some correspondence with one of the cygwin maintainers,
>> > it seems that gcc -mno-cygwin has changed for the better with
>> > to C++ support. The relevant points are
>> > o The Cygwin "gcc-mingw" package has a cygwin-free libstdc++
>> > o Cygwin setup installs this package automatically with gcc
>> > o g++ -mno-cygwin therefore *includes* C++ library support
>> > That means it should be possible simply to
>> > use -sBUILD="<cxxflags>-mno-cygwin" with the regular gcc toolset,
>> > rendering gcc-nocygwin obsolete. In particular, installing
> STLport, as
>> > recommended in the gcc-nocygwin documenation, is probably *not*
>> > advice anymore.
>> > I think it's time to remove the gcc-nocygwin toolset, and maybe
>> > include a note to the effect that -mno-cygwin should just work as
>> > gcc compiler option. Any reason not to do this? Can someone advise
>> > correct procedure for obsoleting a toolset?
>> I guess it depends which version of GCC you have, no?
> I take it you wouldn't advocate removing it outright? What other
> options would you suggest (without causing undue confusion to newer
Document the new information. Maybe even label the toolset
"deprecated" for the next release, and modify it so it prints a
warning with a reference to the documentation page the first time it's
used. At least we'll find out if anyone depends on it.
> I'm not sure if there was support for this with the 2.95.3-5 compiler.
> Obviously you can't mix the new libstdc++ with the old compiler, so it
> might require a compiler upgrade for some people. On the other hand, I
> can't imagine that many people would be affected by this (how far back
> are we trying to support, anyway). I think it's important not to
> confuse new users, who are likely to have (or be able to move to ) a
> recent release of Cygwin anyway.
> The only correspondence I've ever had about this toolset usually
> indicated that it was not very robust anyway (various problems with
> the instructions for building STLport).
It's your baby. If you really think it's best to remove it, I won't
-- David Abrahams dave_at_[hidden] * http://www.boost-consulting.com Boost support, enhancements, training, and commercial distribution
Boost-Build list run by bdawes at acm.org, david.abrahams at rcn.com, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk