Mail Archives: cygwin/2007/02/05/07:13:57
On Mon, Feb 05, 2007 at 11:58:38AM +0100, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>On Feb 4 22:09, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>> On Sun, Feb 04, 2007 at 11:29:59PM -0000, Dave Korn wrote:
>> >There have been no serious objections, so I think we should go ahead.
>> >Perhaps we should replace the gcc, g++, g77 etc. drivers with shell
>> >scripts that look for -mno-cygwin on the command line and redirect to
>> >i686-pc-mingw-{gcc,g++,etc} or to i686-pc-cygwin-{gcc,g++,etc}, just to
>> >make life easier for the backwardly-compatible, but I don't see any
>> >reason not to go ahead and remove the option from the driver.
>>
>> I can remove the driver from the upstream trunk sources but, as I've
>> repeatedly said, I don't want to make -mno-cygwin available by default.
>> If we still, by default, have the option then we still have problems
>> with people not getting it.
>
>I'm somewhat concerned about this step, though. How is the configure in
>winsup supposed to work, if you suddenly need two compilers to build
>Cygwin? The top-level configury only takes one target, not two. If you
>only have a linux-x-cygwin cross compiler, your build suddenly fails if
>you don't have a linux-x-mingw compiler as well.
>
>So, to build Cygwin from scratch, you first have to build two
>compilers and two binutils. This sounds not feasible to me.
>
>Or, the configury in winsup must be changed so that you can build
>everything with the i686-pc-cygwin compiler. This should be possible,
>shouldn't it? It's just a question of using the right start files and
>import libs, isn't it?
>
>I would like to have this cleared before we do this crucial step.
I'll fix cygwin. I assume that Dave will probably release a gcc
for testing and I'll make sure that cygwin builds with that.
cgf
--
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
- Raw text -