Available for test: gcc-3.1.1-2 gcc2-2.95.3-8

[Charles Wilson]

Christopher Faylor wrote:

> On Fri, Jul 12, 2002 at 12:33:31AM -0400, Charles Wilson wrote:
> 
>>'Course, for my cygwin-host, mingw-target cross compiler, I'll need to 
>>respin 
>>it so that it coexists with the official gcc and gcc2 and gcc-mingw 
>>packages...sigh.
>>
> 
> Do you need this anymore, though?


Perhaps not.  It was really just an experiment: everybody including me 
has been claiming that "just build a real cross-compiler; that's 'the 
right way to do it'"

so I gave it a shot.

It wasn't as easy as everyone thought.  Lots of weirdness (mostly in 
directory layout) to make it coexist peacefully with the mingw bits of 
cygwin.

>  You could get by with this, couldn't
> you:
> 
> i686-pc-mingw32-gcc is:
> #!/bin/sh
> gcc -mno-cygwin $(@+"$@"}


Probably.

> 
> Or, should I not be coopting the i686-pc-mingw32 target directory?
> Maybe it really should be something like i686-pc-mingw32-cygwin.  Bleah.


No, I think you made the right choice.  Besides, my cross compiler goes 
into /opt/mingw/* -- so no conflict there.  Also, if one were to install 
mingw itself, it goes into /mingw.


>>Say, where do you change gcc(2.95.3) so that g++-2 links against 
>>libstdc++-2.a instead of libstdc++.a?  (Ditto g77).  It doesn't seem to 
>>be in the specs file, so I dunno WHERE that is done...
>>
> 
> It is in the last two lines of the specs file:
> 
> #define LIBSTDCXX "-lstdc++-2"
> #define FORTRAN_LIBRARY "-lg2c-2"


I'll look for it -- it's not in my "normal" sources, so I guess normal 
sources use a default definition from somewhere else.  I'll download 
your gcc2-src package and use that...


> The files themselves get munged by mknetrel's extra/gcc2 script.


Ah.  But if you munge the filenames at install time, then don't stage2 
and stage3 break?


> Btw, I moved that libstdc++.a.whatever file out of /usr/lib for the next
> release.  Although, actually, if I had just moved it into the
> /usr/i686-pc-cygwin/lib directory, I might not have had to add the -2
> part.  Argh.  Not going to change it now...


Agreed -- I actually LIKE the -2 distinction.


> 
> cgf
> (Who's off for the 4000th rebuild of these packages...)


<groan>

--Chuck



--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting:         http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/