Re: [AD] Getting Allegro to work with Cygwin

[Eric Botcazou <ebotcazou@xxxxxxxxxx>]

> I have fixed the problems with building Allegro under Cygwin and using it
> to compile programs. Attatched is a diff of allegro\docs\build\mingw32.txt
> from version 4.0.3 . mingw32.txt now explains how to build using Cygwin
> and how to compile an Allegro program with Cygwin.

Thanks for your contribution. Patch commited (with a few tweaks and 
additions) both on the trunk and the branch.

> Now that Cygwin can be used, should mingw32.txt be renamed so it isn't
> misleading, or should it spawn a cygwin.txt file?

Neither, I'd say. As you have remarked, we need to pass '-mno-cygwin' to use 
Allegro under Cygwin. This means that we are actually cross-compiling from 
Cygwin to MinGW, i.e there is no stand-alone Cygwin port.

Moreover, the MinGW folks released some time ago MSYS, a light-weight Unix 
over Windows environment that lies exactly in the middle between MinGW and 
Cygwin (it reuses one of the Cygwin DLLs). The MinGW port of Allegro already 
supports it (in 4.0.3 and 4.1.9), although this is currently not documented 
(but a patch is in preparation). So docs/build/mingw32.txt is the obvious 
place to add the missing informations, by building upon both the MinGW and 
the Cygwin instructions.

> Seeing that it's been some time since that was written, has it been fixed?
> I do not use profiling so I have not tried this.

I don't know.

> I have not tried Cygwin with Dev-C++ so I don't know if the bit about
> DevC++ will work without any tweaking.

Is it possible to use Cygwin and Dev-C++ at the same time? I think Dev-C++ 
includes its own version of the MinGW compiler.

> I also decided to see if there were any differences between the 4.0.3 and
> 4.1.9 versions of mingw32.txt. I noticed that in 4.0.3, there's a more
> extensive section on cross-compilation than in 4.1.9. Was this
> intentionally left out of the 4.1.x series, or should it be there as well.

The reworked cross-compilation section will be in the 4.1.10 release.

> Also there's the following difference between the 4.0.3 version and 4.1.9
> version.

Oops! Again an oversight... the 4.1.9 version is the right one. Now fixed on 
the 4.0 branch.

-- 
Eric Botcazou