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 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
> 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] * 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