Re: Quantifying the time overhead of Cygwin make

On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 4:43 AM, Tor Lillqvist <tml@iki.fi> wrote:
> Are you sure GnuWin32 actually is something even worth considering?
> Cygwin at least has a semi-decent package management even if it is a
> bit slower.
If I understand correctly the exercise is about replacing gmake itself
from a cygwin-running version to a native-running version of gmake
the need for cygwin in general is still there...

That being said,, reading the patch it seems there is no need for a 'flag day'
most of the change in configure.ac are -u + -d => -sm and the need for
-m or not in same case
It should be possible to make that an autogen option, to allow a
non-distruptive migration

I'll test the native gmake on my windows tb, and if that works, I'll
have a stab at the patch to make it support both mode

Norbert