Building Win32 apps on Linux? (To Cygwin users on the list...)

Toralf Lund toralf@procaptura.com
Sat Sep 3 13:34:00 GMT 2005


Christopher Faylor wrote:

>On Fri, Sep 02, 2005 at 08:33:01PM +0200, Toralf Lund wrote:
>  
>
>>Christopher Faylor wrote:
>>    
>>
>>>On Fri, Sep 02, 2005 at 08:03:16PM +0200, Toralf Lund wrote:
>>>      
>>>
>>>>I'm still not sure I see the full picture, though.  Does this mean that
>>>>actual cross build setup is readily available,
>>>>        
>>>>
>>>No.
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>It's tempting to ask why not...
>>    
>>
>
>Yes, it's good that you didn't do something so pushy and rude as to ask
>someone why they only chose to provide hundreds of megabytes of free
>stuff and didn't choose to go to the extra effort of providing you with
>some extra, tangentially related stuff, which would suit your specific
>needs.
>  
>
Yeah, telling a software developer about my needs as a user would be 
quite rude, wouldn't it?

Snide remarks aside, though, if I had asked it would only have been 
because I thought the answer might be "we just never thought of it" or 
"we believed nobody would want it." And because I assumed it wouldn't 
involve a lot of work.

>>But I guess there must be someone who has released binaries for this,
>>if I decide that's what I want.
>>    
>>
>
>Or, you could build your own, this being the crossgcc mailing list,
>where this sort of thing is dealt with on a daily basis.
>  
>
Which is precisely why I think that doing it all over again is perhaps 
quite pointless.

>>>I just built a cross-compiler for my system.  Normal users just run
>>>gcc on windows.
>>>      
>>>
>>Aren't the normal users those who have to support multiple platforms?
>>    
>>
>
>Normal users login to systems and type "configure; make; make install".
>  
>
Yes, but would they do that on MSWin unless they also have to maintain 
software on other platform where that build style is more common?

Again, I didn't mean to be overly critical here. All I was trying to say 
was that I'd be surprised if a large proportion of your user base 
wouldn't want a full cross building setup, if you chose to include it.

>That's what you get with cygwin.
>
>  
>
>>It seems to me that it must be better to have the same build host for
>>most or all of them...
>>    
>>
>
>The goal of cygwin is to provide a linux environment for Windows not a
>cross compilation environment to Windows.  FWIW, the former is very much
>more ambitious than the latter.
>  
>
Indeed. However, it does seem like you've been on the ambitions path 
already, and overcome most of the obstacles...

>  
>
>>Personally, I think I may possibly be talked into developing software
>>for Windows, but only if I don't have to do actual work under the
>>Windows environment, which I just don't like (that's why I'm here,
>>right?)
>>    
>>
>
>I have no idea why you're here.  You're in a mailing list which, AFAICT,
>has no obvious anti-Windows bias. I haven't seen anyone here trying to
>talk you into developing software on Windows.
>
I think you read too much into what I said. I'm here partly because I 
rather like typing "make" to build stuff, and I would assume most 
subscribers feel the same. This is not the "native" Windows way of doing 
things. That's all there is to it, really.

>  I really doubt that
>anyone cares where you build your software.
>  
>
It was all just a silly aside. I wouldn't be surprised if some of the 
involved parties do care, though. "redhat.com" seems to be mentioned a 
lot in the list headers...

>>>You build a cygwin cross compiler more or less the same way as you build
>>>any cross compiler.  The standard windows libraries and headers are part
>>>of the winsup/mingw and winsup/w32api directories which are supposed to
>>>be used and automatically when you build a cross-compiler.
>>>      
>>>
>>Where do these come from? The gcc distro itself? glibc?
>>    
>>
>
>You can check them out of CVS (I'll let you guess where you'd have to go
>to find cygwin CVS) right into a standard "devo" build tree containing
>such directories as "binutils, opcodes, gcc, gdb, etc." or you can
>download the sources from the cygwin release and install them on the
>linux system of your choice.
>  
>
Right. Sorry. I thought you meant "automatically" as in "those libs will 
always be there when you unpack the usual combination of GNU sources." 
(So I was a bit put off when I didn't see them anywhere.)

>>I did have a stab at building a "cross gcc" for cygwin target, but I was 
>>using my newlib-based setup for embedded platforms, which I didn't 
>>really expect to work. And I was right. The build looked promising for a 
>>while, but eventually failed due to missing stdio.h or something like 
>>that. I didn't investigate the issue further.
>>    
>>
>
>It sounds like you need to start investigating things further.  I'd suggest
>google or the archives of this mailing list.
>  
>
I did search a bit before I posted to the list, obviously. As always, 
Google returned a lot of pages touching on the subject (including many 
Cygwin related pages), but truly useful information was harder to find...

>--
>Christopher Faylor			spammer? ->	aaaspam@sourceware.org
>Cygwin Co-Project Leader				aaaspam@duffek.com
>TimeSys, Inc.
>
>------
>Want more information?  See the CrossGCC FAQ, http://www.objsw.com/CrossGCC/
>Want to unsubscribe? Send a note to crossgcc-unsubscribe@sources.redhat.com
>
>  
>


------
Want more information?  See the CrossGCC FAQ, http://www.objsw.com/CrossGCC/
Want to unsubscribe? Send a note to crossgcc-unsubscribe@sources.redhat.com



More information about the crossgcc mailing list