This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the Cygwin project.
Re: What's wrong? gcc brain-damaged on cygwin?
- From: Florin Jurcovici <flj at mail dot dnttm dot ro>
- To: Cygwin mailing list <cygwin at cygwin dot com>
- Date: Sun, 22 Dec 2002 19:55:53 +0200
- Subject: Re: What's wrong? gcc brain-damaged on cygwin?
- Organization: Private
> Why in the world are you creating your own gcc?
Just a reflex - I use to build everything from sources, no matter if on Linux directly or on cygwin, so from time to time I
just get fresh sources from the gnu site or one of the mirrors, and build the new vers. Since ./configure, make and make
install seem to work flawlesly in most cases, I don't see any problem with this. In fact, I like it more when configure tells
me about something missing than if for instance rpm on linux telling me so. (Does LFS sound familiar to you? It's the only way
I appreciate a clean and solid linux system can be built. Which gives me an idea: cygwin from scratch :-)
>From the answer below I started to think there must be something fishy in the installation of gcc on my machine. So I did a
search through the file system, dumped the search paths for gcc, got some ideas and tried again:
$ g++ -I/usr/local/include -L/usr/local/lib testnewchar.cc
cc1plus.exe: warning: changing search order for system directory "/usr/local/include"
cc1plus.exe: warning: as it has already been specified as a non-system directory
And magically it worked!
And you ppl which said gcc <file>.cc doesn't compile properly as C++ are right: the same command with gcc instead of g++,
doesn't work if I add a simple #include <iostream> at the beginning and some cout << <something> in the code.
Best regards, and thanks a lot to all ppl which helped me solve the mistery. And merry Christmas and a happy new year.
Complex problems have simple, easy to understand wrong answers.
22 Dec 2002 17:59:08, "Dockeen" <email@example.com> wrote:
>"Could it be that when compiling and installing gcc with
>--enable-languages=c++ only gcc doesn't install some
> Why in the world are you creating your own gcc? I used to do it
>just because I wanted to use the gcc-3.1 code, but it is darn
>tricky and completely unneccessary now, as gcc comes pre-built
>in the devel directory. If there is something unique you want
>to do with a version of gcc, make a parallel build, don't build
>over Cygwin's gcc.
I couldn't find any problem until now (re. "darn tricky") with building anything from sources, right over of cygwin's originals
binaries. I _did_ build over cygwin's gcc, it seems the only problem is I didn't build in the same path - I'll fix this asap
anyway - I usually don't change default prefixes, and the precompiled gcc for cygwin doesn't install by default into
Regarding long build times: the heaviest build of all stuff I periodically recompile is glibc - gcc compiles faster. Not even
glibc takes longer than 1 hour, and I find this acceptable, since gcc on NT doesn't kill the OS, and I can do other things in
>When I was creating my own stuff, I was creating it as an additional
>compiler to the Cygwin compiler. I created it in a directory I called
>mygcc. And I believe, if memory served, when I compiled I had to
>do something like the following (I had aliased my new compiler to
>newg++ hello.cpp -L\mygcc\lib
>to make sure that the libstdc++ stuff got found.
>But again, I would not do a build of gcc now, certainly not one that
>replaces the Cygwin binaries.
>Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
>Bug reporting: http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting: http://cygwin.com/bugs.html