Boost logo

Boost-Build :

From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-01-23 11:16:31

"William E. Kempf" <wekempf_at_[hidden]> writes:

> David Abrahams said:

>> 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.
> It's not labeled "Cygwin GCC", it's only labeled "GNU GCC".

I know.

> I wasn't aware that the gcc toolset only worked with the Cygwin GCC,
> however. And I think it's still at least confusing, if not
> misleading.


> Further, I think it's important that we include a "true" Windows GCC
> compiler in the Windows regression reports, regardless of whether or
> not we continue to include the Cygwin results.

Probably. I'm not sure MinGW is quite as important to Windows users
as Cygwin is, but it's getting close.

>>> 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.
> Yes... that would be up to Beman I guess. It would require yet another
> installed compiler, though, so the gcc-nocygwin would probably be better.

Fine with me

David Abrahams
dave_at_[hidden] *
Boost support, enhancements, training, and commercial distribution

Boost-Build list run by bdawes at, david.abrahams at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at