Mailing-List: contact cygwin-apps-help AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com; run by ezmlm
Sender: cygwin-apps-owner AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com
List-Subscribe: <mailto:cygwin-apps-subscribe AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>
List-Archive: <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin-apps/>
List-Post: <mailto:cygwin-apps AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>
List-Help: <mailto:cygwin-apps-help AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/lists.html#faqs>
Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin-apps AT sources DOT redhat DOT com
X-Apparently-From: <earnie?boyd AT yahoo DOT com>
Message-ID: <3AE092C8.3CF4E005@yahoo.com>
Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2001 15:49:28 -0400
From: Earnie Boyd <earnie_boyd AT yahoo DOT com>
Reply-To: Cygwin Apps <cygwin-apps AT cygwin DOT com>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.76 [en] (WinNT; U)
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: cygwin-apps AT cygwin DOT com
Subject: Re: GCC -mno-cygwin vs mingw32-gcc cross environment.
References: <3AE07A27 DOT 3AAC7BE5 AT yahoo DOT com> <20010420145020 DOT A25768 AT redhat DOT com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Christopher Faylor wrote:
> 
> On Fri, Apr 20, 2001 at 02:04:23PM -0400, Earnie Boyd wrote:
> >I've just successfully completed building a Cygwin native cross build
> >environment for --target=mingw32.  While I'm cleaning up the code
> >modifications I would like to ask if we should consider deprecating the
> >-mno-cygwin switch in favor of the cross environment?
> >
> >I would rather see the cross build environment become standard because
> >it is a natural for autoconfiguration.  You just add --host=mingw32 to
> >the configuration scripts instead of needing to do CC='gcc -mno-cygwin'
> >configure ... .
> >
> >Comments?
> 
> Without gettin too much into the semantics of the word "deprecate", I
> think it makes sense to strongly discourage use of -mno-cygwin if there
> is a true cross-compiler available.
> 

It is a true cross.  The first thing I did was to build a MinGW native
version.

> So, are you proposing that you will maintain a i686-pc-mingw32-gcc port,
> Earnie?  

I'm willing to make the changes but I would like to merge them with the
cygwin port so that only one source tarball is necessary.  The main
difference of course is which runtime library to use.  I had some
strange configurations where configure thought that I had vfork.h and
stabs.h and I of course don't.  I did the Q&D workaround on these.

> One problem is that this will mean keeping at least a separate
> version of binutils/ld, too, since ld has some builtin defaults that
> may not be appropriate for mingw.
> 

And all of the other binutils utilities.  Binutils just needed the
--target=mingw32 switch to build it.  Also, I've currently lumped the
mingw-runtime and w32api headers and libraries together into the cross
path as well, I probably should look at soft linking these instead.

While I'm on the subject of configuration what would a preferred
--prefix be?  I'm thinking --prefix=/usr/cross just in case someone
wants to contribute a cross-compiler for more than just MinGW; but there
certainly wouldn't be anything out of line with --prefix=/usr either.

Earnie.

_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com