Mail Archives: cygwin-apps/2002/04/26/00:12:37
Robert Collins wrote:
> Yes. I even documented all this some time back on
> http://www.cygwin.com/ml/cygwin-apps/2001-11/msg00634.html, but
> predicatably enough, no patches where forthcoming. Probably due to the
> complete lack of a prebuilt bz2lib for mingw (that my cursory searches
> have looked for).
https://sourceforge.net/projects/mingwrep/
>>I wonder if we need a "mingw-libs" package.
>>
>
> Yes, please, please, yes. I would really really love it if some of the
> common libs (zlib, bz2lib, stdc++) where available in a setup.exe
> installable pacakge.
Yes, I like this too -- but I'm nervous about it growing ridiculously
large. What if (eventually) setup.ini turns into XML? Do we put a
mingw build of libxml into 'mingw-libs'? How far does this go?
(visions of full{mingw}.exe)
OTOH, we've already discussed (and discarded, thank g-d) the idea of
(for instance) the zlib maintainer providing both a
cygwin-setup-installable zlib package (/usr/bin/cygz.dll,
/usr/lib/libz.[dll|a]) and a cygwin-setup-installable mingw-zlib package
(/usr/bin/mgwz.dll, /usr/lib/mingw/libz.[dll|a]). Ditto bzip2, libxml,
... we are not a mingw-porting factory.
>>2) The above won't work in a cross build environment. You could say
>> CC='i686-pc-cygwin-gcc -mno-cygwin'..., I guess.
> for cross compiles:
> ../setup/configure --host=i686-pc-mingw32 --build-i686-pc-linux
> should do it (assuming a mingw32 cross compiler is present), or a
> combination using the CC string you have above with the mingw host will
> work too.
whatever happened to the idea of an official cygwin package, that
contained a true cygwin-host, mingw-target cross compiler? Didn't
somebody or other volunteer to provide that?
(Granted, we still need 'cygwin-gcc -mno-cygwin' for the "self-hosting"
feature of cygwin1.dll, but there's no real need to *require* cygwin-gcc
-mno-cygwin for setup.exe, now that setup has been moved out of the
winsup tree)
>>anything that is non-simple. I haven't looked at it in a
>>while, though, so maybe things have changed.
>>
>
> It really depends on what you want to do. Some stuff it does
> spectalularly well, some things it has trouble with. With the 'cross
> compiling but not' approach, it would almost certainly have some trouble
> :}.
see above, true cross compiler...
--Chuck
- Raw text -