Re: [RFC] Simplify MinGW canadian crosses

[Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@false.org>]

On Tue, Aug 29, 2006 at 11:23:30AM -0400, DJ Delorie wrote:
> 
> > Corinna is trying to generate --host=i686-mingw32 tools, with a
> > different --target.  This requires at least a --target=i686-mingw32
> > compiler coming from elsewhere.  That compiler can build the
> > --host=i686-mingw32 libraries, and usually should.
> 
> Yes.  So?  We build that compiler from the same tree (as a simple
> cross), so it's still the same problem.  We still have to build those
> libraries somehow, we still need to have them in source control, etc.
> Our build farm likes to see a monolithic source tree, and we already
> support building cygwin out of that tree, building mingw out of it is
> a minor change.
> 
> (actually, we build four compilers out of that tree:
> 	linux-linux-linux
> 	linux-linux-mingw
> 	linux-linux-arm
> 	linux-mingw-arm)

I really feel like I'm not communicating here; you're not answering
what I'm asking.  Do you disagree with any of these points?

- To build linux-linux-mingw you already had to have a working compiler
targeting linux.

- To build linux-mingw-arm you must have already built
linux-linux-mingw.  And you must have installed it somewhere that
you could run it later.

- When you build linux-linux-mingw from the combined tree, it
is capable of building the mingw libraries.  That's even the normal
time to do it.

When it comes time to build linux-mingw-arm, you're trying to build
mingw at the same time.  I think that's silly; you should have built
it an iteration earlier.  When you were building a compiler, and
libgcc, for mingw.

Now maybe there's some clever reason why this is better, that you
can explain to me.  I'm not violently opposed.  But I don't see why
we should pick up complexity to build it the way Corinna described
it, unless there's some reason - this stuff is way overcomplex already.

Or maybe the description was wrong, or I misunderstood it?  It doesn't
fit with the tests added to configure.in, which check ${target} for
being mingw.

On a minor note, unless there's some reason otherwise, you may want to
use sinclude(../config/no-executables.m4) instead of copying
GCC_NO_EXECUTABLES.

-- 
Daniel Jacobowitz
CodeSourcery