Re: [ITP] mingw-w64 (32-bit)

On Sep 17 10:33, Charles Wilson wrote: > On 9/17/2010 7:24 AM, Corinna Vinschen wrote: > > > > cygwin-pkg-maint? > > Done. Thanks, Corinna -- Corinna Vinschen Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to Cygwin Project Co-Leader cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Red Hat

Re: [ITP] mingw-w64 (32-bit)

On 9/17/2010 7:24 AM, Corinna Vinschen wrote: > > cygwin-pkg-maint? Done. -- Chuck

Re: [ITP] mingw-w64 (32-bit)

On Sep 17 04:17, Charles Wilson wrote: > On 9/16/2010 9:38 AM, JonY wrote: > > I have uploaded the 32bit toolchain, I hope there are no thinkos when > > adapting the cygport files. > > All packages rebuild from source ok. Packaging looks good; I used them > to build a working xz and liblzma with

Re: [ITP] mingw-w64 (32-bit)

On 9/17/2010 16:17, Charles Wilson wrote: On 9/16/2010 9:38 AM, JonY wrote: I have uploaded the 32bit toolchain, I hope there are no thinkos when adapting the cygport files. All packages rebuild from source ok. Packaging looks good; I used them to build a working xz and liblzma with no troubl

Re: [ITP] mingw-w64 (32-bit)

On 9/16/2010 9:38 AM, JonY wrote: > I have uploaded the 32bit toolchain, I hope there are no thinkos when > adapting the cygport files. All packages rebuild from source ok. Packaging looks good; I used them to build a working xz and liblzma with no trouble. genini is happy with the setup.hints (

[ITP] mingw-w64 (32-bit)

Hi, I have uploaded the 32bit toolchain, I hope there are no thinkos when adapting the cygport files. mingw64-i686-binutils category: Devel requires: libgcc1 libintl8 zlib0 sdesc: "Binutils for MinGW-w64 Win32 toolchain" ldesc: "Mingw-w64 Cross binutils for Win32 target." https://sourceforg

Re: [ITP] mingw-w64 Second try

On Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 05:58:08AM +0100, Andy Koppe wrote: >On 13 September 2010 18:26, Charles Wilson wrote: >> On 9/13/2010 6:52 AM, JonY wrote: >>> OK, new headers tarballs up. Thanks for keeping an eye out. >> >> All packages are uploaded. > >A big round of applause for JonY, Chuck, and Yaakov

Re: [ITP] mingw-w64 Second try

On 13 September 2010 18:26, Charles Wilson wrote: > On 9/13/2010 6:52 AM, JonY wrote: >> OK, new headers tarballs up. Thanks for keeping an eye out. > > All packages are uploaded. A big round of applause for JonY, Chuck, and Yaakov for the huge amount of work they've put into this. Andy

Re: [ITP] mingw-w64 Second try

On 9/13/2010 2:16 PM, Corinna Vinschen wrote: > Chuck, can you please update http://cygwin.com/cygwin-pkg-maint, too? Done.

Re: [ITP] mingw-w64 Second try

On Sep 13 13:26, Charles Wilson wrote: > On 9/13/2010 6:52 AM, JonY wrote: > > OK, new headers tarballs up. Thanks for keeping an eye out. > > All packages are uploaded. Please wait 24 hours until they can > propagate to the mirrors, then post announcements to cygwin-announce. Chuck, can you ple

Re: [ITP] mingw-w64 Second try

On 9/13/2010 6:52 AM, JonY wrote: > OK, new headers tarballs up. Thanks for keeping an eye out. All packages are uploaded. Please wait 24 hours until they can propagate to the mirrors, then post announcements to cygwin-announce. Please look at the suggested templates here: http://cygwin.com/cgi-

Re: [ITP] mingw-w64 Second try

On 9/13/2010 16:05, Charles Wilson wrote: On 9/12/2010 10:24 PM, JonY wrote: On 9/13/2010 01:01, Charles Wilson wrote: On 9/11/2010 2:07 AM, JonY wrote: OK, new files are up, same links. Err...the pthread packages seem to be missing... Sorry about that, pthreads now uploaded. OK, all packa

Re: [ITP] mingw-w64 Second try

On 9/12/2010 10:24 PM, JonY wrote: > On 9/13/2010 01:01, Charles Wilson wrote: >> On 9/11/2010 2:07 AM, JonY wrote: >>> OK, new files are up, same links. >> Err...the pthread packages seem to be missing... > Sorry about that, pthreads now uploaded. OK, all packages rebuild fine from souce. Also,

Re: [ITP] mingw-w64 Second try

On 9/13/2010 01:01, Charles Wilson wrote: On 9/11/2010 2:07 AM, JonY wrote: OK, new files are up, same links. Err...the pthread packages seem to be missing... Sorry about that, pthreads now uploaded.

Re: [ITP] mingw-w64 Second try

On 9/11/2010 2:07 AM, JonY wrote: > > OK, new files are up, same links. > Err...the pthread packages seem to be missing... -- Chuck

Re: [ITP] mingw-w64 Second try

On 9/10/2010 08:51, JonY wrote: On 9/10/2010 07:09, Charles Wilson wrote: On 9/9/2010 6:10 AM, JonY wrote: OK, we're amost there. binutils and runtime are GTG. gcc, headers, and pthreads are really close. Everything rebuilds from source fine, and the uploaded packages actually match the

Re: [ITP] mingw-w64 Second try

On 9/10/2010 07:09, Charles Wilson wrote: On 9/9/2010 6:10 AM, JonY wrote: OK, we're amost there. binutils and runtime are GTG. gcc, headers, and pthreads are really close. Everything rebuilds from source fine, and the uploaded packages actually match the rebuilt versions (or vice versa).

Re: [ITP] mingw-w64 Second try

On 9/9/2010 6:10 AM, JonY wrote: OK, we're amost there. binutils and runtime are GTG. gcc, headers, and pthreads are really close. Everything rebuilds from source fine, and the uploaded packages actually match the rebuilt versions (or vice versa). So that's all good. Plus, I was able to bu

Re: [ITP] mingw-w64 Second try

On 9/2/2010 01:35, Charles Wilson wrote: On 9/1/2010 11:44 AM, JonY wrote: On 9/1/2010 23:15, Charles Wilson wrote: On 8/31/2010 11:20 PM, JonY wrote: On 9/1/2010 10:28, Charles Wilson wrote: On 8/31/2010 8:52 PM, JonY wrote: Strange, I'll try a rebuild. The former should be the correct loca

Re: [ITP] mingw-w64 Second try

On 9/1/2010 11:44 AM, JonY wrote: > On 9/1/2010 23:15, Charles Wilson wrote: >> On 8/31/2010 11:20 PM, JonY wrote: >>> On 9/1/2010 10:28, Charles Wilson wrote: On 8/31/2010 8:52 PM, JonY wrote: > Strange, I'll try a rebuild. The former should be the correct > location. Errr..

Re: [ITP] mingw-w64 Second try

On 9/1/2010 23:15, Charles Wilson wrote: On 8/31/2010 11:20 PM, JonY wrote: On 9/1/2010 10:28, Charles Wilson wrote: On 8/31/2010 8:52 PM, JonY wrote: Strange, I'll try a rebuild. The former should be the correct location. Errr...no. The *latter* is the correct location (at least, that's whe

Re: [ITP] mingw-w64 Second try

On 8/31/2010 11:20 PM, JonY wrote: On 9/1/2010 10:28, Charles Wilson wrote: On 8/31/2010 8:52 PM, JonY wrote: Strange, I'll try a rebuild. The former should be the correct location. Errr...no. The *latter* is the correct location (at least, that's where the sysroot'ed compiler will look for t

Re: [ITP] mingw-w64 Second try

On 9/1/2010 10:28, Charles Wilson wrote: On 8/31/2010 8:52 PM, JonY wrote: On 9/1/2010 03:32, Charles Wilson wrote: Rebuilds fine from source (*), but the binary tarball above is not ok. It has the headers in the following directory: usr/x86_64-w64-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/x86_64-w64-mingw32/incl

Re: [ITP] mingw-w64 Second try

On 8/31/2010 8:52 PM, JonY wrote: > On 9/1/2010 03:32, Charles Wilson wrote: >> Rebuilds fine from source (*), but the binary tarball above is not ok. >> It has the headers in the following directory: >> usr/x86_64-w64-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/x86_64-w64-mingw32/include/ >> instead of >> usr/x86_64-w

Re: [ITP] mingw-w64 Second try

On 9/1/2010 03:32, Charles Wilson wrote: On 8/25/2010 12:19 AM, JonY wrote: since cygport and gcc has been updated, I can do the packaging without any local hacks. Here are the packages. Overall comments: I see you reverted to bundling the DLLs with the compiler packages (e.g. no separate min

Re: [ITP] mingw-w64 Second try

On 8/25/2010 12:19 AM, JonY wrote: since cygport and gcc has been updated, I can do the packaging without any local hacks. Here are the packages. Overall comments: I see you reverted to bundling the DLLs with the compiler packages (e.g. no separate mingw64-x86_64-libfoo-* tarballs). While it

Re: [ITP] mingw-w64 Second try

On 8/26/2010 22:21, Charles Wilson wrote: On 8/25/2010 8:14 PM, JonY wrote: On 8/25/2010 12:19, JonY wrote: since cygport and gcc has been updated, I can do the packaging without any local hacks. Ping. Less than a single day is a bit quick to ping. I'll take a look at this tonight or tomo

Re: [ITP] mingw-w64 Second try

On 8/25/2010 8:14 PM, JonY wrote: On 8/25/2010 12:19, JonY wrote: since cygport and gcc has been updated, I can do the packaging without any local hacks. Ping. Less than a single day is a bit quick to ping. I'll take a look at this tonight or tomorrow; thanks for your hard work. -- Chuck

Re: [ITP] mingw-w64 Second try

On 8/25/2010 12:19, JonY wrote: Hi, since cygport and gcc has been updated, I can do the packaging without any local hacks. Here are the packages. mingw64-x86_64-pthreads https://sourceforge.net/projects/mingw-w64/files/Cygwin%20Snapshots/dist/mingw64-x86_64-pthreads/mingw64-x86_64-pthreads-20

[ITP] mingw-w64 Second try

Hi, since cygport and gcc has been updated, I can do the packaging without any local hacks. Here are the packages. mingw64-x86_64-pthreads https://sourceforge.net/projects/mingw-w64/files/Cygwin%20Snapshots/dist/mingw64-x86_64-pthreads/mingw64-x86_64-pthreads-20100619-1.tar.bz2/download https

Re: [ITP] mingw-w64

On 06/07/2010 16:59, JonY wrote: > On 7/6/2010 23:36, Charles Wilson wrote: >> I found the problem: configure.ac is patched, but there's no mechanism >> to ensure that the corresponding change to configure is included in the >> patch (by default, cygport *assumes* you will run autoreconf, and so >

Re: [ITP] mingw-w64

On 05/07/2010 18:38, Charles Wilson wrote: > However, the DLLs don't appear to be in the correct locations. > > opt/mingw64/bin/libobjc-2.dll > opt/mingw64/bin32/libgcc_s_sjlj-1.dll > opt/mingw64/bin64/libgcc_s_sjlj-1.dll > opt/mingw64/lib/gcc/x86_64-w64-mingw32/4.6.0/32/libgfortran-3.dll > opt/m

Re: [ITP] mingw-w64

On 7/7/2010 04:26, Charles Wilson wrote: On 7/6/2010 11:59 AM, JonY wrote: On 7/6/2010 23:36, Charles Wilson wrote: Now, in this case you do NOT want to run autoreconf. The gcc codebase requires "careful handling" if you want to update the auto* generated files; autoreconf is not smart enough.

Re: [ITP] mingw-w64

On 7/6/2010 11:59 AM, JonY wrote: On 7/6/2010 23:36, Charles Wilson wrote: Now, in this case you do NOT want to run autoreconf. The gcc codebase requires "careful handling" if you want to update the auto* generated files; autoreconf is not smart enough. I did this too with the libstdc++-v3, l

Re: [ITP] mingw-w64

On 7/6/2010 23:36, Charles Wilson wrote: On 7/6/2010 1:10 AM, JonY wrote: I had a thinko, thanks for the patch. Yeah, cygport moves the libtool dlls around. I will recheck on the README file and libobjc-2, I thought I patched up the configure file. You did, but... Alright, I repackaged binu

Re: [ITP] mingw-w64

On 7/6/2010 1:10 AM, JonY wrote: I had a thinko, thanks for the patch. Yeah, cygport moves the libtool dlls around. I will recheck on the README file and libobjc-2, I thought I patched up the configure file. You did, but... Alright, I repackaged binutils to add the /etc/profile.d scripts I

Re: [ITP] mingw-w64

On 7/6/2010 09:33, JonY wrote: On 7/6/2010 01:38, Charles Wilson wrote: OK, a bit further along. With the recently posted patch to cygport: http://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin/2010-07/msg00117.html AND the attached patch to your .cygport script, I get a bit further with the install step. It completes w

Re: [ITP] mingw-w64

On 7/6/2010 01:38, Charles Wilson wrote: OK, a bit further along. With the recently posted patch to cygport: http://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin/2010-07/msg00117.html AND the attached patch to your .cygport script, I get a bit further with the install step. It completes without error (but I still have

Re: [ITP] mingw-w64

OK, a bit further along. With the recently posted patch to cygport: http://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin/2010-07/msg00117.html AND the attached patch to your .cygport script, I get a bit further with the install step. It completes without error (but I still have the warning about the missing cygwin-specif

Re: [ITP] mingw-w64

On 7/2/2010 2:36 AM, JonY wrote: > Here are the GCC links. I hope I got them all. mingw64-m32-libgcc1-4.6.20100619-1.tar.bz2 mingw64-m32-libgfortran3-4.6.20100619-1.tar.bz2 mingw64-m32-libgomp1-4.6.20100619-1.tar.bz2 mingw64-m32-libobjc2-4.6.20100619-1.tar.bz2 mingw64-m32-libssp0-4.6.20100619-1.ta

Re: [ITP] mingw-w64

On Sun, Jul 4, 2010 at 12:26 AM, Andy Koppe wrote: >> PERHAPS it makes the most sense to provide two single-target compilers >> (but most of the interop issues would remain; the only simplification >> would be the elimination of any packages that are explicitly >> "mingw64-{tc64}-m32-foo" or "ming

Re: [ITP] mingw-w64

Hi, New copies are up, no changes to CRT. All have the same links except for pthreads. libgomp requires: is also fixed due to pthreads change. I hope I'm not getting sloppy. mingw64-tc64-m64-libpthread-devel

Re: [ITP] mingw-w64

On 7/4/2010 12:41, Charles Wilson wrote: On 7/3/2010 9:17 PM, JonY wrote: On 7/4/2010 04:04, Charles Wilson wrote: On 7/3/2010 1:44 PM, JonY wrote: On 7/3/2010 11:27, Charles Wilson wrote: Oddly, my build doesn't appear to depend on zlib0; libgcc1 and libintl8 (and cygwin, of course, but that

Re: [ITP] mingw-w64

On 7/4/2010 12:26 AM, Andy Koppe wrote: > I'd be termpted to go with two single-target compilers, but as long as > the mingw64 guys are happy to deal with two multilib ones long term, I > guess that's ok. Yeah, like I told NightStrike: as for this particular decision, whatever JonY is happy with,

Re: [ITP] mingw-w64

On 7/3/2010 9:17 PM, JonY wrote: > On 7/4/2010 04:04, Charles Wilson wrote: >> On 7/3/2010 1:44 PM, JonY wrote: >>> On 7/3/2010 11:27, Charles Wilson wrote: Oddly, my build doesn't appear to depend on zlib0; libgcc1 and libintl8 (and cygwin, of course, but that is never included in requir

Re: [ITP] mingw-w64

On 3 July 2010 14:37, Charles Wilson wrote: >> What's the use case for having two multilib toolchains instead of >> either two standalone ones or a single multilib toolchain? > > My use case is: I'd like to install one compiler that handles both > "targets". But, since my personal PCs are all 32bit

Re: [ITP] mingw-w64

On 7/4/2010 04:04, Charles Wilson wrote: On 7/3/2010 1:44 PM, JonY wrote: On 7/3/2010 11:27, Charles Wilson wrote: Oddly, my build doesn't appear to depend on zlib0; libgcc1 and libintl8 (and cygwin, of course, but that is never included in requires:). It doesn't? I thought I saw -lz linked

Re: [ITP] mingw-w64

On 7/3/2010 1:44 PM, JonY wrote: > On 7/3/2010 11:27, Charles Wilson wrote: >> Oddly, my build doesn't appear to depend on zlib0; libgcc1 and libintl8 >> (and cygwin, of course, but that is never included in requires:). >> > > It doesn't? I thought I saw -lz linked in for some executables. OK, wil

Re: [ITP] mingw-w64

On 7/3/2010 11:27, Charles Wilson wrote: I am a little surprised that you got this to work simply by passing --prefix=/opt/mingw64/... and a few other flags. Last time I looked closely, cygport assumed /usr in quite a few places. Maybe that's changed; if so, cool! There were others like docdi

Re: [ITP] mingw-w64

On 7/3/2010 2:28 AM, Andy Koppe wrote: > On 3 July 2010 03:07, Charles Wilson wrote: >>> Is mingw64 already part of a major Linux distribution? Otherwise it >>> needs five votes from Cygwin maintainers. >> >> AFAICT, mingw64 is "the" mingw cross compiler provided by fedora. > > Great. > >>> Final

Re: [ITP] mingw-w64

On 3 July 2010 03:07, Charles Wilson wrote: >> Is mingw64 already part of a major Linux distribution? Otherwise it >> needs five votes from Cygwin maintainers. > > AFAICT, mingw64 is "the" mingw cross compiler provided by fedora. Great. >> Finally, I'm not sure what the conclusion was about which

Re: [ITP] mingw-w64

I am a little surprised that you got this to work simply by passing --prefix=/opt/mingw64/... and a few other flags. Last time I looked closely, cygport assumed /usr in quite a few places. Maybe that's changed; if so, cool! On 7/2/2010 1:29 AM, JonY wrote: > mingw64-tc64-headers: ... > category:

Re: [ITP] mingw-w64

On 7/2/2010 1:41 PM, Andy Koppe wrote: > On 2 July 2010 08:17, JonY wrote: >> OK to upload if packaging is fine, no changes needed. > > Great to see mingw64 coming to Cygwin, but I think the upload should > wait until Cygwin gcc maintainer Dave Korn has had a chance to comment > on this. I agree.

Re: [ITP] mingw-w64

On Fri, Jul 2, 2010 at 1:41 PM, Andy Koppe wrote: > Is mingw64 already part of a major Linux distribution? Otherwise it > needs five votes from Cygwin maintainers. Ubuntu, Debian, and Fedora. > Also, are you sure that gcc-4.6 is sufficiently stable for release, > i.e. that there won't be any mor

Re: [ITP] mingw-w64

On 2 July 2010 08:17, JonY wrote: > OK to upload if packaging is fine, no changes needed. Great to see mingw64 coming to Cygwin, but I think the upload should wait until Cygwin gcc maintainer Dave Korn has had a chance to comment on this. Is mingw64 already part of a major Linux distribution? Oth

Re: [ITP] mingw-w64

On 7/2/2010 14:38, JonY wrote: I forgot to mention, don't upload GCC first, I need to confirm the nature of the gcc bug with Kai. Some GCC headers are needlessly shadowing the system headers. OK to upload if packaging is fine, no changes needed.

Re: [ITP] mingw-w64

I forgot to mention, don't upload GCC first, I need to confirm the nature of the gcc bug with Kai. Some GCC headers are needlessly shadowing the system headers.

Re: [ITP] mingw-w64

Hi, Here are the GCC links. I hope I got them all. mingw64-tc64-gcc4:

Re: [ITP] mingw-w64

Hi, new uploads done. GCC links in the next mail. mingw64-tc64-headers:

Re: [ITP] mingw-w64

On 6/30/2010 3:50 PM, Charles Wilson wrote: > On 6/30/2010 1:51 PM, JonY wrote: >> Right now, human intervention still needed. cygport messes up the target >> dll locations by moving them around and trying to fix libtool files. Its >> also using cygwin strip(1) to strip 64bit dlls, it fails but doe

Re: [ITP] mingw-w64

On 6/30/2010 7:12 PM, Charles Wilson wrote: >> Do also give the ability to tell cygport to exclude some libtool files >> from getting fixed up, thanks. > > Again, I *think* you can suppress this; I'll check tomorrow. No, apparently you can't (yet) do this. It's fairly easy to add, though. I'll

Re: [ITP] mingw-w64

On 6/30/2010 2:06 PM, JonY wrote: Thanks, I will check it out. (btw, libtool too needs to get an epoch version, having problems with macro version mismatches in gcc cygautoreconf). Oh boy. Yeah, I would imagine so. The gcc-tools-* stuff was added to support Dave Korn's needs when building the

Re: [ITP] mingw-w64

On 6/30/2010 1:51 PM, JonY wrote: On 7/1/2010 00:36, Charles Wilson wrote: I don't know much about sf's buildbot; I assume that if you can get a cygport to DTRT on your home PC without human intervention except for kicking off the build, then you can convince the buildbot to do it for you? Ri

Re: [ITP] mingw-w64

On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 3:34 PM, Charles Wilson wrote: > On 6/30/2010 2:53 PM, NightStrike wrote: >> >> On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 12:36 PM, Charles Wilson wrote: >>> >>> Hmm. So, big picture, we have possibly three different mingw-ish >>> compilers, >>> and you're currently attempting to shepherd th

Re: [ITP] mingw-w64

On 6/30/2010 2:53 PM, NightStrike wrote: On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 12:36 PM, Charles Wilson wrote: Hmm. So, big picture, we have possibly three different mingw-ish compilers, and you're currently attempting to shepherd the first one, while being mindful of future issues related to simultaneous ins

Re: [ITP] mingw-w64

On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 12:36 PM, Charles Wilson wrote: > Hmm. So, big picture, we have possibly three different mingw-ish compilers, > and you're currently attempting to shepherd the first one, while being > mindful of future issues related to simultaneous installation of both of the > first two:

Re: [ITP] mingw-w64

On 7/1/2010 00:49, Charles Wilson wrote: As an aside, to compile with a different prefix using cygport requires a bit of work right now, because AFAIK cygport doesn't support anything but --prefix=/usr. See http://cygwin.osuosl.org/release/autoconf/gcc-tools-epoch2-autoconf/gcc-tools-epoch2-auto

Re: [ITP] mingw-w64

On 7/1/2010 00:36, Charles Wilson wrote: On 6/29/2010 1:13 PM, JonY wrote: On 6/30/2010 00:10, Charles Wilson wrote: Now, I thought you wanted to use the w64 prefix as a "project origin" indicator, and assumed that "-mingw64-" would be the "target bitdepth" indicator. However, given "w64-mingw6

Re: [ITP] mingw-w64

As an aside, to compile with a different prefix using cygport requires a bit of work right now, because AFAIK cygport doesn't support anything but --prefix=/usr. See http://cygwin.osuosl.org/release/autoconf/gcc-tools-epoch2-autoconf/gcc-tools-epoch2-autoconf-2.64-1-src.tar.bz2 for how I did i

Re: [ITP] mingw-w64

On 6/29/2010 1:13 PM, JonY wrote: On 6/30/2010 00:10, Charles Wilson wrote: Now, I thought you wanted to use the w64 prefix as a "project origin" indicator, and assumed that "-mingw64-" would be the "target bitdepth" indicator. However, given "w64-mingw64-pthreads-devel32" and "w32-mingw64-pthre

Re: [ITP] mingw-w64

On 6/30/2010 00:10, Charles Wilson wrote: On 6/28/2010 15:16, JonY wrote: On 6/28/2010 14:53, Charles Wilson wrote: If you *really* want to prefix everything with w64 to indicate which "compiler family" they belong to, then something like w64-mingw64-libgcc1 w64-mingw64-libstdc+

Re: [ITP] mingw-w64

On 6/28/2010 15:16, JonY wrote: > On 6/28/2010 14:53, Charles Wilson wrote: >> If you *really* want to prefix everything with w64 to indicate which >> "compiler family" they belong to, then something like >>w64-mingw64-libgcc1 >>w64-mingw64-libstdc++6 >>w64-mingw64-libgfortr

Re: [ITP] mingw-w64

On 6/29/2010 12:56, NightStrike wrote: On Mon, Jun 28, 2010 at 11:27 PM, JonY wrote: Sourceforge doesn't have an FTP, it makes things a bit hard, I'll try to get an FTP server soon. Basically, its everything under: Is

Re: [ITP] mingw-w64

On Mon, Jun 28, 2010 at 11:27 PM, JonY wrote: > Sourceforge doesn't have an FTP, it makes things a bit hard, I'll try to get > an FTP server soon. Basically, its everything under: > Is FTP specifically required? Or can t

Re: [ITP] mingw-w64

On 6/28/2010 15:16, JonY wrote: On 6/28/2010 14:53, Charles Wilson wrote: On 6/27/2010 8:32 PM, JonY wrote: On 6/26/2010 19:59, JonY wrote: Hello, mingw-w64 (mingw-w64.sourceforge.net) is a toolchain to target 64bit windows. It is setup as a cygwin hosted cross compiler. Currently it is split

Re: [ITP] mingw-w64

On 6/28/2010 14:53, Charles Wilson wrote: On 6/27/2010 8:32 PM, JonY wrote: On 6/26/2010 19:59, JonY wrote: Hello, mingw-w64 (mingw-w64.sourceforge.net) is a toolchain to target 64bit windows. It is setup as a cygwin hosted cross compiler. Currently it is split into 4 packages: headers, crt, bi

Re: [ITP] mingw-w64

On 6/27/2010 8:32 PM, JonY wrote: > On 6/26/2010 19:59, JonY wrote: >> Hello, >> mingw-w64 (mingw-w64.sourceforge.net) is a toolchain to target 64bit >> windows. It is setup as a cygwin hosted cross compiler. Currently it is >> split into 4 packages: headers, crt, binutils and gcc. The latter 2 is

Re: [ITP] mingw-w64

On 6/26/2010 19:59, JonY wrote: Hello, mingw-w64 (mingw-w64.sourceforge.net) is a toolchain to target 64bit windows. It is setup as a cygwin hosted cross compiler. Currently it is split into 4 packages: headers, crt, binutils and gcc. The latter 2 is from FSF. GCC 4.6 (trunk) was chosen to avoid

Re: [ITP] mingw-w64

On 6/27/2010 21:10, NightStrike wrote: On Sat, Jun 26, 2010 at 7:59 AM, JonY wrote: mingw-w64 gcc-rt (runtime):

Re: [ITP] mingw-w64

On Sat, Jun 26, 2010 at 7:59 AM, JonY wrote: > mingw-w64 gcc-rt (runtime): > >

[ITP] mingw-w64

Hello, mingw-w64 (mingw-w64.sourceforge.net) is a toolchain to target 64bit windows. It is setup as a cygwin hosted cross compiler. Currently it is split into 4 packages: headers, crt, binutils and gcc. The latter 2 is from FSF. GCC 4.6 (trunk) was chosen to avoid the ABI change from 4.5.0 bi