Mailing-List: contact cygwin-apps-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
Sender: cygwin-apps-owner AT cygwin DOT com
List-Subscribe: <mailto:cygwin-apps-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Archive: <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin-apps/>
List-Post: <mailto:cygwin-apps AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help: <mailto:cygwin-apps-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/lists.html#faqs>
Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin-apps AT cygwin DOT com
Message-ID: <08e601c1a2f7$35b39d30$0200a8c0@lifelesswks>
From: "Robert Collins" <robert DOT collins AT itdomain DOT com DOT au>
To: <cygwin-apps AT cygwin DOT com>
References: <20020122032839 DOT GA23746 AT redhat DOT com> <08d401c1a2f4$d2d66370$0200a8c0 AT lifelesswks> <20020122034231 DOT GA23893 AT redhat DOT com>
Subject: Re: gcc v3 issue -- hacky solution
Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2002 14:45:17 +1100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 22 Jan 2002 03:47:11.0021 (UTC) FILETIME=[78C9FDD0:01C1A2F7]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Christopher Faylor" <cgf AT redhat DOT com>
>
> There's a library -- it's libstdc++.a.

:]

> >but the no-exceptions clause won't fly without some convincing.
>
> How about, you can't do that unless you come up with some way of
> ensuring that there is a mingw version of libstdc++ available?

I can ensure that, but you won't like the answer. (Hint, have one native
compiler and one cross compiler built as required)

> The code in the sources.redhat.com:/cvs/src repository is supposed to
be
> self-hosting.  You should be able to build it with nothing but a
native
> C compiler/linker.  We can't just say "You have to have the right
> library available."

Gotcha. Well, it seems to me that

> That seems like a pretty steep hill to me.
>
> Or, maybe we move the cinstall directory out of the winsup hierarchy
> and into cygwin-apps.  Then we can make our own rules.

I'm neutral on that. In some ways it'd be easier - ie for packaging, and
for building the native parser I keep mentioning...

> Please don't get me wrong.  It would actually make my life much easier
> if we could somehow create a mingw version of libstdc++.a (I'm getting
> carpal tunnel from typing that so much...).  The reason I'm bringing
> this up now is that I'm getting internal "This isn't building" email
> about some of the things in winsup/utils.  This wouldn't be an issue
> at all if we had a mingw version of libstdc+...  Ow!

Perhaps some of those folk would like to become a mingw library package
maintainer?

Or maybe Danny Smith can provide details on what it takes to build said
library, and one of the folk that keep building gcc for-the-hell-of-it
and talking on cygwin@ can become the maintainer?

Rob