Re: [MinGW-dvlpr] Re: [MinGW-patches] Re: GCC version.c: Affect Version Number Only for MinGW/Cygwin

[Earnie B. <ear...@ya...>]

Ranjit Mathew wrote:
> Danny Smith wrote:
> 
>> I don't see what is wrong with unconditional "Mingw" .in the version
>> string for the mingw distro.  The binaries that are built are meant to
> 
> 
> Well, this seemed to be the only "invasive" MinGW patch to
> FSF GCC and hence the request - everywhere else we nicely
> #ifdef out our changes.
> 
> 
>> be special  for  the mingw runtime as at release date.  If you want
>> "unspecial"  binaries, just use the FSF release or snapshot sources.
> 
> 
> Right. However, I was thinking of having only one GCC source tree
> on my box for building GCC 3.2 for Linux as well as Win32.
> Of course I can very well keep two separate source trees for
> these builds, but it somehow seems wasteful.
> 
> 
>> The addition of the "Mingw special" was just me-too imitation of what
>> cygwin has been doing for awhile.
> 
> 
> IIRC, in the early days, ports like DJGPP and Cygwin differed
> quite a bit from the FSF sources and hence merited a different
> ("special") version - now that GCC supports Cygwin/MinGW natively
> and that MinGW patches are relatively benign, IMHO we should
> leave the version number alone.
> 

I want to know if it's Cygwin vs MinGW when dumping the version.  The 
significance of "Mingw special" vs "Cygwin special" vs "UWIN special" vs 
... is to identify the runtime used.  It's common to have both Cygwin 
and MinGW versions of GCC in your development tools and identification 
is necessary.

Earnie.