"Duft Markus" <Markus.Duft@salomon.at> writes:
When building with wgcc there are a few benefits:
Wgcc uses the native windows compiler to build (so the code may or may not be faster ;o)) and whats a lot more important: the debug information produced is readable by visual studio, so you can debug the output. Gdb on windows (at least on interix) is so terribly broken, i could not debug 10 lines of code without gdb failing at some point.
Works great for me under Cygwin, especially through emacs.
The visual studio debugger (the 2005 version especially) is very very much better. (gdb on cygwin doesn't behave too good either.
What's wrong with it?
With cygwin the thing is, that cygwin isn't really quite stable on win xp and above when using more than one CPU.
Never had a problem there, but haven't stressed Cygwin since I got 2 cores. However, given your claims about Cygwin/gdb I am inclined to wonder about this claim.
The second thing is, that resulting executables depend on msvcrt.lib and are therefore binary compatible with nearly everything ;o) on windows.
That's also true of MinGW, right?
When using gcc it has it's own libc (on interix gcc is a interix build, and has really not much to do with windows.... ;o//) and one can't link those things together, so in gcc built binaries one can _not_ use the win32 API which, on windows, is not really desireable.
Huh? Not so; I have used the win32 API even through cygwin GCC. And then there's gcc -mno-cygwin.
The last thing is, that tools such as Rational Purify may be used to examine the resulting binaries. It's all just really native ;o)
I'm really overwhelmed that someone outside my company finally shows at least _some_ interest. It's really cool, give it a try!
Not sure what I'm missing here, but at this point I don't see why I should bother. The existing tools work for me and are well-established, with good support. -- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting www.boost-consulting.com