cross compiling patches

Chris Faylor
Wed Mar 29 17:03:00 GMT 2000

On Wed, Mar 29, 2000 at 07:41:33PM -0500, DJ Delorie wrote:
>> >One remaining (and yet uncommented) problem is that the second level
>> >directories
>> > - libiberty
>> > - include
>> >of our cvs repository are not compatible to the current state of
>> >the net release preview. I think it's due to the fact that
>> >binutils in the repository is a 199909.. version while the net
>> >release binutils is the 19990818-1 version.
>> >
>> >I only want let this as an aid to memory.
>> This has already been commented on in the cygwin-developers mailing
>> list and DJ is looking into this.
>My current thinking is to remove all the libiberty.a files and other
>shared development files (bfd, opcodes) from the three tarballs that
>shouldn't have them (gcc, binutils, gdb) as those packages really
>shouldn't be exporting those libraries to other packages (yes,
>binutils/bfd is an exception, but...).  They are often incompatible
>between packages, and there isn't really anything we can do about
>them.  Plus, any source package that needs them usually includes the
>right version itself.
>I did find that the only differences between the *.h files was that
>gdb's had CR/LF and binutils's had NL.  Except, that assert from gcc
>and from cygwin are totally different but either should work just

Ouch.  We don't want CRLF's in the files since these will be in a directory
that is mounted as "binary".

I agree that we should probably only have things like libiberty in one
tar ball.


More information about the Cygwin-patches mailing list