Re: [avr-gcc-list] Alpha testers wanted...

[E. Weddington]

On 29 Apr 2003 at 22:22, Joerg Wunsch wrote:

> [Hmm, i see you're posting this to the avr-gcc list, while my previous
> mail was private only.  OK, i setup my "From" address suitable for the
> list, but most people will probably miss a good part of the previous
> mail.]
> 

[ I posted to avr-gcc-list because I thought it might interest a 
wider audience. Anybody feel free to yell at me if this should be 
private instead.]

> As E. Weddington wrote:
> 
> > Cygwin is NOT needed. MinGW / MSYS however is needed. There are DLL
> > issues if one builds under Cygwin.
> 
> But these DLL issues shouldn't affect the local system, only the
> distributed version, or am i wrong here?

Generally true.
 
> Does MinGW / MSYS all the additional tools (in particular, bzip2, tar,
> and patch)?
> 
> Ah, read a bit there, i see the instructions to get them.
>
> Wouldn't using Cygwin make the task less complex because it's more of
> a ``unified distribution'', as opposed to gather around various tools?

Like all engineering, it's a tradeoff. :) Yes, Cygwin is more 
unified. But then you have to be concerned with not linking to Cygwin 
DLLs (using -mno-cygwin for example).

Also note that if one has WinAVR installed, then those tools (as well 
as a prebuilt bison and flex and a bunch more) are also installed as 
well. Which certainly helps when building with MinGW / MSYS.

I'd rather someone build and test with the same system / setup that 
WinAVR is built with, just to not have that variable be an issue. But 
ultimately its up to the user.

Eric