<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, Aug 26, 2009 at 7:46 PM, John Chludzinski <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:john.chludzinski@gmail.com">john.chludzinski@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
> Yoshiki Ohshima yoshiki at <a href="http://vpri.org" target="_blank">vpri.org</a> <br>> Wed Aug 26 20:32:00 UTC 2009 <div class="im"><br><div>></div><div>> At Wed, 26 Aug 2009 16:28:46 -0400,<br></div>> John Chludzinski wrote:<br>
> <br></div><div class="im">
>> Wouldn't Cygwin allow for greater commonality (than MinGW) within the code base? ---John<br>><br></div><div class="im"> > In the current code base, do you have any particular pieces in your<br>> mind where switching to Cygwin would really help to get greater<br>
> commonality?<br>><br><div>> -- Yoshiki<br></div><div><br></div></div><div>No I don't. I've never looked thru the VM source for Win32 calls that could be POSIX calls. I just ported a POSIX app (OpenSolaris) to Windows (using Cygwin 1.7 beta) and was impressed with how remarkably painless that was. And being a Smalltalker/Squeaker, when possible, that question came to mind. ---John</div>
</blockquote><div><br>The thing is the license with Cygwin. You must attach cygwin dll with your program (SqueakVM in this case) :(<br>MinGW as the name says, it is smaller and in my case (I did this for OpenDBX library) it was much more faster than cygwin. Obviously that's if the app you want to compile doesn't use certain stuff MinGW can handle. And you don't depend in any external dll like cygwin.<br>
<br> </div></div><br>