From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 14446 invoked by alias); 29 Aug 2006 15:32:17 -0000 Received: (qmail 14337 invoked by uid 22791); 29 Aug 2006 15:32:16 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from nevyn.them.org (HELO nevyn.them.org) (66.93.172.17) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31.1) with ESMTP; Tue, 29 Aug 2006 15:32:14 +0000 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 4.54) id 1GI5ZO-00050E-W6; Tue, 29 Aug 2006 11:32:07 -0400 Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2006 15:44:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: DJ Delorie Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org, gdb-patches@sourceware.org, binutils@sourceware.org, mingw-patches@lists.sourceforge.net, cygwin-patches@cygwin.com Subject: Re: [RFC] Simplify MinGW canadian crosses Message-ID: <20060829153206.GA19040@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: DJ Delorie , gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org, gdb-patches@sourceware.org, binutils@sourceware.org, mingw-patches@lists.sourceforge.net, cygwin-patches@cygwin.com References: <20060829114107.GA17951@calimero.vinschen.de> <20060829124525.GA13245@nevyn.them.org> <200608291459.k7TExRDT026512@greed.delorie.com> <20060829150948.GA18308@nevyn.them.org> <200608291523.k7TFNUR6027243@greed.delorie.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200608291523.k7TFNUR6027243@greed.delorie.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.11+cvs20060403 X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2006-08/txt/msg00211.txt.bz2 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