This is the mail archive of the crossgcc@sourceware.org mailing list for the crossgcc project.
See the CrossGCC FAQ for lots more information.
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |
Other format: | [Raw text] |
On Fri, Sep 02, 2005 at 08:33:01PM +0200, Toralf Lund wrote:Yeah, telling a software developer about my needs as a user would be quite rude, wouldn't it?
Christopher Faylor wrote:
On Fri, Sep 02, 2005 at 08:03:16PM +0200, Toralf Lund wrote:It's tempting to ask why not...
I'm still not sure I see the full picture, though. Does this mean thatNo.
actual cross build setup is readily available,
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.
Which is precisely why I think that doing it all over again is perhaps quite pointless.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.
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?I just built a cross-compiler for my system. Normal users just runAren't the normal users those who have to support multiple platforms?
gcc on windows.
Normal users login to systems and type "configure; make; make install".
That's what you get with cygwin.Indeed. However, it does seem like you've been on the ambitions path already, and overcome most of the obstacles...
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.
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.
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 really doubt thatIt 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...
anyone cares where you build your software.
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.)You build a cygwin cross compiler more or less the same way as you buildWhere do these come from? The gcc distro itself? glibc?
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.
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.
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...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.
-- 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
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |