On Wed, Jul 07, 2010 at 06:22:30PM -0400, NightStrike wrote:
>On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 6:12 PM, Charles Wilson
><cyg...@cwilson.fastmail.fm> wrote:
>> On 7/7/2010 5:03 PM, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>>>
>>> On Wed, Jul 07, 2010 at 09:44:14PM +0100, Andy Koppe wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 7 July 2010 18:27, NightStrike wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> How's it built now?
>>>>
>>>> With Cygwin gcc and the -mno-cygwin option, using mingw.org's w32api.
>>>
>>> It doesn't use -mno-cygwin. ?How could it? ?The build uses the latest
>>> gcc 4 which doesn't have that option. ?It uses the Cygwin gcc either
>>> natively
>>
>> Okay, with you so far.
>>
>>> or as a cross-compiler.
>>
>> Huh? ?Do you mean that we use cygwin's gcc as a code generator, and turn off
>> everything that makes it "cygwin":
>>
>> (e.g. -nostartfiles ?-nodefaultlibs -nostdlib -nostartup -nostdinc
>> -nostdinc++ etc),
>>
>> and -- because we build in a tree that includes w32api/ and mingw/ --
>> explicitly add those things that would make it a "mingw" compiler:
>>
>> (e.g. -I ${srcdir}/winsup/w32api/include -I ${srcdir}/winsup/mingw/include
>> -L ... ${builddir}/winsup/mingw/crt0.o etc)
>>
>> I *think* that's what you meant -- but it's an odd definition of the term
>> "cross compiler". ?It's more like: we've tied it up and tortured it until it
>> agrees to act like a cross compiler.
>
>It probably just means that they build gcc on linux and specify
>--target=i686-pc-cygwin in the gcc/binutils configureYes, I believe that would be the standard definition of a "cross-compiler". Maybe we can move on from this now? cgf
