This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the Cygwin project.
Re: GCC -mno-cygwin vs mingw32-gcc cross environment.
- To: cygwin-apps at cygwin dot com
- Subject: Re: GCC -mno-cygwin vs mingw32-gcc cross environment.
- From: Earnie Boyd <earnie_boyd at yahoo dot com>
- Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2001 15:49:28 -0400
- References: <3AE07A27.3AAC7BE5@yahoo.com> <20010420145020.A25768@redhat.com>
- Reply-To: Cygwin Apps <cygwin-apps at cygwin dot com>
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 ... .
> 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
> So, are you proposing that you will maintain a i686-pc-mingw32-gcc port,
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.
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com