mingw and other gotchas in gcc 3.1
Mon Jun 24 08:58:00 GMT 2002
Christopher Faylor wrote:
> I'm finishing up on the release of gcc 3.1 and I have a few gotchas that
> I'd like to discuss:
> 1) I was going to take Red Hat's cue and release the new version of
> gcc as gcc3. However, this will require manual deinstallation of
> gcc (2.95.3-whatever) so this is probably a bad thing. Somehow, I
> just think that if we don't still make the older version of gcc
> available, there will be many "This used to build on gcc 2.95.3!!!"
> So, maybe I should rename the old version to gcc2 or release a version
> of 2.95.3 that names the binaries (i686-pc-cygwin-gcc2) differently.
> Any thoughts?
I think the gcc2 idea should be acceptable.
> 2) I'm trying to remove most of the spec file magic that dealt with
> mingw and I think I've actually been pretty successful. However,
> my new scheme relies on changing the machine name from i686-pc-cygwin
> to i686-pc-mingw. That means that the new layout looks like this:
> total 0
> lrwxrwxrwx 1 cgf None 122 Jun 23 23:41 bin -> ../i686-pc-cygwin/bin
> lrwxrwxrwx 1 cgf None 125 Jun 23 23:42 include -> /usr/include/mingw
> lrwxrwxrwx 1 cgf None 113 Jun 23 23:42 lib -> /usr/lib/mingw
> total 0
> drwxr-xr-x 4 cgf None 0 Dec 25 2000 i686-pc-cygwin
> lrwxrwxrwx 1 cgf None 108 Jun 23 23:48 i686-pc-mingw -> i686-pc-cygwin
> Ideally, the include, lib stuff in /usr/i686-pc-mingw should not be a
> symbolic link but should, instead, be the actual directories that they
> reference. However, coordinating this will be tricky. I'm thinking that
> I should just add a postinstall script that will try to do the right thing
> if /usr/i686-pc-mingw doesn't have the right stuff. However, I'd like to
> confirm with Earnie/Danny that this new layout makes sense.
> FWIW, I think this is the way I should have laid stuff out originally.
It should be i686-pc-mingw32. You also may wish the target to be stated
only as mingw32 instead of i686-pc-mingw32 in order to be consistent
with the MinGW version and to ward off confusion in the list. Otherwise
it's fine with me.
> 3) The above layout has a problem. It works ok generating mingw binaries but,
> with gcc-3.1, I've configured things using --enable-threads=posix. So, some
> binaries don't link successfully. That means that the libgcc.a library is
> inappropriate for mingw. So, the above directory layout can potentially
> become a little trickier since I'll need to build a libgcc.a (and libstdc++.a,
> I guess) for mingw. This seems like a lot of duplication of effort, though,
> so maybe I'll try to figure out some way to download the bits that I need
> from sourceforge or something. Or,...
The sourceforge ftp directory is
ftp1.sourceforge.net/pub/sourceforge/mingw/ if you wish to take that
direction. Or, Danny...
> 4) Since mingw is becoming so logically separated from gcc, it is possible that
> it could become a separate package. So, if "someone" was willing to supply
> a gcc-mingw package, it would actually be helpful. I don't think I could
> stand the pain of making this optional, so the gcc package would rely on
> the gcc-mingw package rather than the other way around. This would allow
> updating libgcc.a and libstdc++.a without requiring a new release of gcc.
> Hmm. I wonder if I should break libstdc++.a out of the gcc package. Urgh.
> Any suckers (cough) want to contribute a separate package?
Or would a --host=cygwin --build=cygwin --target=mingw be better for the
gcc-mingw cygwin package?
More information about the Cygwin-apps