Yaakov Selkowitz writes: > To ease the maintenance of MinGW cross-compiling packages, I have > written a new mingw.cygclass (actually, a series of cygclasses, but > that's the top-level one that you should use) which is designed to > allow building both 32- and 64-bit MinGW binaries in the same build. > It also allows for the introduction of Windows for ARM toolchains, > which I have bootstrapped but am not able to verify due to the lack of > access to such systems. (Therefore, they are disabled by default.)
I've had a look finally and when I say that I really mean reading the diffs… > Because this moves fundamentally away from the single-arch paradigms on > which cygport was built (remember that cygport predates the widespread > availability of 64-bit Windows systems), extensive changes were > required that could possibly break something. Therefore, I have posted > this to the topic/mingw branch of cygport. If maintainers could please > test this with both mingw and ordinary packages, that would be > appreciated. Anything that you'd particularly want to have checked or just generally that things still work? I still need to rebase that branch to current master and then put my patches on top, so I don't expect to immediately start testing. > Also needed is feedback on the naming schemes currently used: > > * mingw32_* functions and MINGW32_ definitions/variables for i686 > * mingw64_* functions and MINGW64_ definitions/variables for x86_64 I'm not particularly enamored with mingw32 as that's not what it is (both are using MingW-W64), on the other hand I have no better idea either. > * mingwarm32_* functions and MINGWARM32_ definitions/variables for > armv7 > * mingwarm64_* functions and MINGWARM64_ definitions/variables for > aarch64 > > * mingw-* for source package names > * mingw64-i686-* for i686 binary packages > * mingw64-x86_64-* for x86_64 binary packages > * mingw64-armv7-* for armv7 binary packages > * mingw64-aarch64-* for aarch64 binary packages > > The function/definition naming scheme is designed around Fedora (which > does not have ARM, so I made those up myself) but the binary package > scheme match our current usage. I realize the source package names are > those from the old i686-only mingw.org packages; whether we want to > rename the binary packages to mingw32-/mingw64-, or rename the source > packages to mingw64-, or do something else entirely, I'm open to > suggestions. I'd tend to leave the names alone unless/until we come up with a way to target multiple cross-architectures from the same package source. Regards, Achim. -- +<[Q+ Matrix-12 WAVE#46+305 Neuron microQkb Andromeda XTk Blofeld]>+ SD adaptation for Waldorf rackAttack V1.04R1: http://Synth.Stromeko.net/Downloads.html#WaldorfSDada
