[PATCH 5/5] Add aarch64-w64-mingw32 target

[Jan Beulich]

On 16.12.2022 03:14, Mark Harmstone wrote:
> --- a/bfd/config.bfd
> +++ b/bfd/config.bfd
> @@ -249,9 +249,9 @@ case "${targ}" in
>      targ_selvecs="aarch64_elf64_be_vec aarch64_elf32_le_vec aarch64_elf32_be_vec arm_elf32_le_vec arm_elf32_be_vec aarch64_pei_le_vec aarch64_pe_le_vec"
>      want64=true
>      ;;
> -  aarch64-*-pe*)
> +  aarch64-*-pe* | aarch64-*-mingw*)
>      targ_defvec=aarch64_pe_le_vec
> -    targ_selvecs="aarch64_pe_le_vec aarch64_pei_le_vec"
> +    targ_selvecs="aarch64_pe_le_vec aarch64_pei_le_vec aarch64_elf64_le_vec aarch64_elf64_be_vec aarch64_elf32_le_vec aarch64_elf32_be_vec arm_elf32_le_vec arm_elf32_be_vec"
>      want64=true
>      targ_underscore=no
>      ;;

Here and elsewhere - are you really targeting a 32-bit ABI (as per the
title)? Or do you instead mean aarch64-*-mingw64, or yet more generically
aarch64-*-mingw*? (From the *-s I used you can see that I also find a
middle component "w64" odd. Luckily you use this only in the title.) The
32- vs 64-bit ABI distinction should imo be done minimally in a way
preventing later confusion, i.e. it would be fine to support just one,
but then an attempt to configure for the other should result in an error,
not in the building of tools for the other ABI. Seeing that mingw{32,64}
are only really distinguished in the top level directory, I wonder though
whether that isn't improperly separated elsewhere as well.

Jan