On 31 ao?t, 13:35, "Alf P. Steinbach" <al...@start.no> wrote:
* Marcel M?ller:
Alf P. Steinbach wrote:
And if porting win code away, why to an archaic version of gcc
instead of a current?
g++ 3.4.5 *is*, unfortunately, the still current version of MinGW. :-(
cygwin with gcc4 package is at 4.3.2 as far as I know.
CygWin isn't MinGW.
If one wants a later version of g++ for Windows than the MinGW one then there
are better alternatives than CygWin.
There are of course "unofficial" Windows builds of later g++ versions
since g++ is into version 4.x on *nix.
Whatever is an official build of a gcc on the windows platform?
The "official" MinGW build of g++ is the one supplied, or rather linked to, on
the MinGW pages.
CygWin is a big and ugly beast and you have to use combersome options to produce
an executable that doesn't depend on CygWin DLLs (or at least you had to, I
haven't followed the latest developments, if any, on the CygWin front).
Essentially simplyfying that is what MinGW does, or did. And other packages of
*nix tools for Windows address other aspects of CygWin. But MinGW is so far
behind in the versions that it's almost removed itself from the scene.