ftp.delorie.com/archives/browse.cgi   search  
Mail Archives: cygwin-apps/2001/04/21/20:42:42

Mailing-List: contact cygwin-apps-help AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com; run by ezmlm
Sender: cygwin-apps-owner AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com
List-Subscribe: <mailto:cygwin-apps-subscribe AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>
List-Archive: <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin-apps/>
List-Post: <mailto:cygwin-apps AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>
List-Help: <mailto:cygwin-apps-help AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/lists.html#faqs>
Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin-apps AT sources DOT redhat DOT com
Message-ID: <014f01c0cac5$3789f510$0200a8c0@lifelesswks>
From: "Robert Collins" <robert DOT collins AT itdomain DOT com DOT au>
To: "Paul Garceau" <pgarceau AT qwest DOT net>, <cygwin-apps AT cygwin DOT com>
References: <3AE07A27 DOT 3AAC7BE5 AT yahoo DOT com>; from earnie_boyd AT yahoo DOT com on Fri, Apr 20, 2001 at 02:04:23PM -0400 <3AE19065 DOT 1131 DOT 36976B AT localhost>
Subject: Re: GCC -mno-cygwin vs mingw32-gcc cross environment.
Date: Sun, 22 Apr 2001 10:43:13 +1000
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 22 Apr 2001 00:35:16.0129 (UTC) FILETIME=[19C7A910:01C0CAC4]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Paul Garceau" <pgarceau AT qwest DOT net>
To: <cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
Sent: Sunday, April 22, 2001 6:51 AM
Subject: Re: GCC -mno-cygwin vs mingw32-gcc cross environment.

> Hi folks,
> On 20 Apr 2001, at 14:50, the Illustrious Christopher Faylor wrote:
> >
> > Without gettin too much into the semantics of the word "deprecate",
> > think it makes sense to strongly discourage use of -mno-cygwin if
> > is a true cross-compiler available.
> I would agree with Chris...not to "deprecate", as Earnie states, but
> to discourage the use of -mno-cygwin for anyone not familiar enough
> with the differences between using -mno-cygwin vs not using -mno-
> cygwin.
> There has been a *ell of a lot of work put in to getting -mno-cygwin
> to work over the years.  I don't believe that effort should be wasted
> by eliminating (or "deprecating", as Earnie puts it) the -mno-cygwin
> switch.
> If there is a "true cross-compiler available", as an "option", such
> things should be pre-installed with any cygwin distributions.  Not
> everyone uses autoconfig, nor does everyone need to.  Autoconfig is a
> "convenience", not a "requirement".
> When it comes to building using the -mno-cygwin switch, I can see how
> it would be "convenient" to not type the extra 11 characters or so.
> Autoconfig, if it is as great as some say, should be capable of
> choosing whether to use -mno-cygwin vs. a "true cross compiler".

And configure will choose a cross compiler with the --target=TARGET
switch. Asking autoconf scripts to assume that a cross compiler is
present doesn't make sense.

Important thing to remember: mingw and cygwin are *different* platforms.

> Cygwin and cross-compilers are not the same thing and should not be
> included in the same distribution/setup process.  Again, ultimately,
> is the developer who should choose, the casual end user who just
> downloaded Cygwin because they wanted to build something like "Crystal
> Space" using the -mno-cygwin switch should not be burdened with trying
> to build a cross-compiler instead of simply running "make".

Developers are the folk who are able to build a cross compiler - IMO end
users should never have to do anything other than configure && make &&
make install and edit a basic config file or run a post-install setup

> > So, are you proposing that you will maintain a i686-pc-mingw32-gcc
> > Earnie?  One problem is that this will mean keeping at least a
> > version of binutils/ld, too, since ld has some builtin defaults that
> > not be appropriate for mingw.
> Thereby forcing added maintenance requirements on people who don't
> really have the time to be dealing with such things, as it is.

a) maintainers are much more efficient than every new crystal space user
learning how to build a cross-compile-tool-chain.
b) someone maintains -mno-cygwin now. And we get what, 1-2 questions a
day on -mno-cygwin?

> Ultimately, seems easier to enable autoconfig under Mingw, and let the
> people download Mingw (from the appropriate site) minus the generic
> binutils (ie those duplicated between cygwin and the cygwin with -mno-
> cygwin enabled), as an optional "plugin" sort of thing to Cygwin
> -mno-cygwin switch).  Especially if they wish to build -mno-cygwin
> based executables or libs.

What's needed to enable configre scripts under mingw? autoconf requires
a unix-like environment (I don't know the exact requirements, but sh is
definately there.) Of course if someone wants to fully port ash or bash
to mingw it might work better. It does step past the _minimalist_ goals
though :[ I'm not a mingwer, and don't claim to know or understand -
perhaps a mingw'er can comment here - would including autoconf && sh as
a core part of mingw lineup with the mingw philosophy?

> In terms of "ld"...well, there are obvious differences between the
> cygwin "ld" and the "ld" which I would recommend when using the -mno-
> cygwin switch.
> Cross compiler, no, new cygwin branch...possibly...

What sort of branch are you suggesting - The only suggestions I get out
of your comments above are
* a new LD
* autoconf scripts running properly on mingw
* don't alter cygwin.


> Just my comments on the subject...
> >
> > cgf
> Peace,
> Paul G.
> >
> Nothing real can be threatened.
>     Nothing unreal exists.
> --
> Want to unsubscribe from this list?
> Check out: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple

- Raw text -

  webmaster     delorie software   privacy  
  Copyright 2019   by DJ Delorie     Updated Jul 2019