This is the mail archive of the cygwin-apps mailing list for the Cygwin project.

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: gcc4: next release

On Jul  7 08:08, Charles Wilson wrote:
> [accidentally posted to the main list; re-sent here]
> On 7/6/2010 10:35 PM, Yaakov (Cygwin/X) wrote:
> > On Tue, 2010-07-06 at 22:07 -0400, Christopher Faylor wrote:
> >> I'd want to check with Corinna on this but I am mildly opposed to putting
> >> this in /opt.  I don't think it makes sense there.  But I haven't been
> >> following closely, though.  Where does Debian put these packages?
> AFAICT, debian (like fedora) put them in /usr.  However, neither debian
> nor fedora gcc-mingw32 packages include any documentation (like info
> files or man pages) -- presumably because such docu might collide with
> those provided by the system gcc.  (Well, fedora appears to include the
> man pages, but they get renamed as $target-foo.1; debian doesn't provide
> any)
> Furthermore, neither debian nor fedora provide any i18n message
> catalogs.  Whether that is because the cross compiler is compiled with
> --disable-nls, or it is just assumed that the system compiler and the
> mingw32 cross compiler will always and forever be kept in sync, it
> doesn't matter: the i18n files just plain aren't present.  (BOTH
> "solutions" appear to be the case for fedora).
> [...snip a lot of info...]
> Note that the "official sysroot" idea can be used with any of these
> three options -- and might be a good thing to establish, on its own merits:
>    /usr/sysroot/mingw32/*
>    /usr/sysroot/mingw64/*
>    /usr/sysroot/mingw64-32/*
> I hope I have summed up the various competing proposals fairly, and that
> this edition of my patented War and Peace emails helps move the
> discussion along to a conclusion.

Ok, I'm sufficiently confused now.  So, here are a few questions.

- Why do we need two different mingw's again?  What are the merits of
  having mingw32 *and* mingw64-32?

- Along the same lines, what are the advantages of having two sets of
  Windows headers and three sets of libs and DLLs?

- Where are the differences of w32api from mingw32 and w32api from
  the mingw64 project?  One of them is apparently that the mingw64
  headers are 64 bit clean.  What else?

- Last but not least, why don't the projects merge and only keep
  one set of w32api headers and libs?  After all, they have the
  same development target.  A merge would help everyone, afaics.

Having said that, I can't see why keeping mingw32 would have any real
advantage, except that it's part of the winsup build tree, so we get the
headers and libs for free when building Cygwin.  Other than that,
switching to mingw64 only seem to have advantages, given that it gives
us the first gcc targeting 64 bit Windows as well, so there's a real
chance to create a 64 bit Cygwin in the next 10 years.  Can anybody
enlighten me?

Oh, and, talking about /opt or /usr, I'd prefer the above /usr/mingw*
sysroot idea.  However, I don't like the idea in the least to keep
two different versions of w32api around.  It's one target, so we should
have one set of headers only.  Right?  Wrong?  None of that?


Corinna Vinschen                  Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to
Cygwin Project Co-Leader          cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Red Hat

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]