28 Nov 14 09:24, you wrote to me:

 ac>> You got further than me.

 BF>    WOW! Now I'm really impressed by myself.  8-)

I didn't try very hard :-)

 BF>  I tried using MingW supplied with Codeblocks:

 BF>    I downloaded the latest mingw-get-setup.exe I could find and
 BF> installed it on a virgin Virtual Box.

I'll have to try that some time.

I assumed the MingW version that Codeblocks uses was pretty "standard" but
maybe not.

 ac>> Hmm. Evidently from all the forward slashes in the Makefile, it's
 ac>> expecting to be built from within a Cygwin environment, not with
 ac>> the regular MingW tools.

 BF>    Sounds like a clash between different makefile versions. I *so* do
 BF> wish that the binkd people could make available properly set up
 BF> installs for the different platforms they try to cover.

I suspect they're mostly concerned with the Linux and MSVC versions. MSVC has
been free now for a few years so I guess there's less incentive to bother
supporting other Windows build versions.

I wrote different Windows makefiles for MakeNL partly as a mental exercise, but
targetting different compilers on the same OS can also occasionally pick up
bugs in your code that you wouldn't otherwise see.

 ac>> mno-cygwin is basically for building Windows binaries that don't
 ac>> depend on the Cygwin DLLs. Apparently deprecated in GCC 4.7,
 ac>> though.

 BF>    Jeepers creepers. Whoever invented that build? I'm sure glad that
 BF> the MakeNl project is not that entangled with various dependencies.

Well MingW forked from Cygwin in the late 90s iirc. It's possible the origins
of the MingW makefile date from back then.

Compared to BinkD, MakeNL is a much less complicated beast!

--- GoldED+/BSD 1.1.5-b20130910