From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-01-23 10:37:34
"William E. Kempf" <wekempf_at_[hidden]> writes:
> Beman Dawes said:
>> At 10:24 AM 1/22/2003, David Abrahams wrote:
>> >"Raoul Gough" <raoulgough_at_[hidden]> writes:
>> >> OK, I'll go with that (see the attached diff - it does the trick on
>> Win2000). David, do you mind if I check this in?
>> >looks good to me!
>> I haven't been following this thread, or the one about gcc-nocygwin.
>> "gcc" is currently used for the Win32 regression tests. I do have cygwin
>> installed on my machine, but get the gcc sources directly and compile
>> them for the version used in the tests.
>> If any of that should change, please let me know.
> Once the dust settles, yes, I think something should change. The gcc
> toolset, using a Cygwin compiler, picks up the Cygwin POSIX emulation
> layer and effects how many libraries get compiled/implemented. For
> example, it causes the Boost.Threads library to build using pthreads
> instead of Win32 threads. I think this is at least misleading, when it's
> reported as a "Windows" compiler.
It's not misleading if the results are labelled "Cygwin GCC"
(whatever). And even so, the toolset docs for GCC clearly state that
it's for Cygwin GCC only.
> The question would be, then, whether or not the Windows regression
> report should only be using gcc-nocygwin, or if it maybe should be
> using both toolsets.
We have a mingw toolset; it could always be done with gcc and mingw.
-- 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