On 7/9/2010 01:09, Dave Korn wrote:
On 07/07/2010 02:47, JonY wrote:
I'm working on the mingw-w64 GCC package on Cygwin. Normally, anything
cygwin gets installed to /usr, however, with gcc 4.6, the locales data
clashes.
Yaakov suggested installing to /usr, but there are some problems with it
On 7/12/2010 8:02 AM, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> On Jul 12 05:25, Yaakov S wrote:
>> On Mon, 2010-07-12 at 10:41 +0200, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>>> You're missing number 4. Cygwin and Mingw are targeting the same
>>> underlying "real" target, which is Windows.
I wasn't actually "missing" it; I ju
On Jul 12 05:25, Yaakov S wrote:
> On Mon, 2010-07-12 at 10:41 +0200, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> > You're missing number 4. Cygwin and Mingw are targeting the same
> > underlying "real" target, which is Windows. Both systems use different
> > approaches and both have their own set of libs and head
On Mon, 2010-07-12 at 10:41 +0200, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> That's something I'll doo as soon as we really intend to switch the
> Cygwin build to mingw64's w32api. Right now, what I get from all the
> gory details, it's not that easy to keep mingw64's w32api headers and
> libs apart from the ming
On Jul 8 08:25, Charles Wilson wrote:
> On 7/8/2010 3:22 AM, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> > On Jul 7 18:24, Christopher Faylor wrote:
> >> [...]
> >> Whether we use w32api in the cygwin tree or from somewhere else really
> >> doesn't matter as long as Cygwin builds.
> >
> > That's why I'd like to k
On Thu, 2010-07-08 at 18:27 -0400, NightStrike wrote:
> 4.5.x ABI and 4.6.x ABI are what differ, not 4.5.0 and 4.5.1.
>
> There's no point in making the first shipped compiler have an ABI
> that's already been changed. Hence 4.6.
Kai said differently on #mingw-w64; apparently it was treated as a
On Thu, Jul 8, 2010 at 12:08 PM, Dave Korn wrote:
>> GCC 4.5.x branch and the 4.6.x branch ABI changed for win64, I'm trying
>> to avoid breaking user's self-built packages, so 4.5.0 and earlier is
>> out of the question. The current 4.3.4 is too old for mingw-w64.
>
> Going with 4.5.1 seems the
On Thu, Jul 8, 2010 at 8:25 AM, Charles Wilson
wrote:
> Well, the 64bit build of w32api provides over 2000 import libraries. The
> 32bit build has only about 225. Apparently this is because the .def
> files that each are generated from are maintained separately, vetted on
> each system, and their
On 07/07/2010 02:47, JonY wrote:
> I'm working on the mingw-w64 GCC package on Cygwin. Normally, anything
> cygwin gets installed to /usr, however, with gcc 4.6, the locales data
> clashes.
> Yaakov suggested installing to /usr, but there are some problems with it.
>
> This makes GCC look in /us
On 07/07/2010 02:47, JonY wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Can I ask what will be the next version of GCC be in Cygwin?
4.5.0-1 if I'm snappy. 4.5.1-1 if I'm not. I plan to get back to it at the
start of next week.
> This makes GCC look in /usr/mingw regardless of what the toolchain
> target is (anything
On 7/8/2010 3:22 AM, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> On Jul 7 18:24, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>> [...]
>> Whether we use w32api in the cygwin tree or from somewhere else really
>> doesn't matter as long as Cygwin builds.
>
> That's why I'd like to know if Cygwin builds with w32api from the
> mingw64 p
On Jul 7 21:17, Charles Wilson wrote:
> On 7/7/2010 8:39 AM, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> > On Jul 7 08:08, Charles Wilson wrote:
> >> I hope I have summed up the various competing proposals fairly, and that
> >> this edition of my patented War and Peace emails helps move the
> >> discussion along t
On Jul 7 18:24, Christopher Faylor wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 07, 2010 at 06:12:23PM -0400, Charles Wilson wrote:
> >On 7/7/2010 5:03 PM, Christopher Faylor wrote:
> >> 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 i
On 7/7/2010 8:39 AM, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> On Jul 7 08:08, Charles Wilson wrote:
>> I hope I have summed up the various competing proposals fairly, and that
>> this edition of my patented War and Peace emails helps move the
>> discussion along to a conclusion.
>
> Ok, I'm sufficiently confuse
On Wed, Jul 07, 2010 at 06:22:30PM -0400, NightStrike wrote:
>On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 6:12 PM, Charles Wilson
> 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:
>
>
On Wed, Jul 07, 2010 at 06:12:23PM -0400, Charles Wilson 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, us
On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 6:12 PM, Charles Wilson
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
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
On 7 July 2010 22:03, Christopher Faylor wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 07, 2010 at 09:44:14PM +0100, Andy Koppe wrote:
>>On 7 July 2010 18:27, NightStrike wrote:
I suppose you could build cygwin with a mingw compiler but that's not
how it's built now so I don't see why it makes a difference.
On Wed, Jul 07, 2010 at 09:44:14PM +0100, Andy Koppe wrote:
>On 7 July 2010 18:27, NightStrike wrote:
>>> I suppose you could build cygwin with a mingw compiler but that's not
>>> how it's built now so I don't see why it makes a difference.
>>>
>>> cgf
>>
>> How's it built now?
>
>With Cygwin gcc a
On 7/7/2010 11:12 AM, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
The important question for me is, can Cygwin be built using the w32api
based on the mingw64 sources?
Is it possible? Maybe; we'll just have to try it.
Is it legally permissible, given (possibly overblown?) concerns about
provenance of the changes
On 7 July 2010 18:27, NightStrike wrote:
>> I suppose you could build cygwin with a mingw compiler but that's not
>> how it's built now so I don't see why it makes a difference.
>>
>> cgf
>
> How's it built now?
With Cygwin gcc and the -mno-cygwin option, using mingw.org's w32api.
Andy
On 7/7/2010 9:48 AM, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
On Jul 7 08:58, Christopher Faylor wrote:
On Wed, Jul 07, 2010 at 02:39:19PM +0200, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
Oh, and, talking about /opt or /usr, I'd prefer the above /usr/mingw*
sysroot idea. However, I don't like the idea in the least to keep
two
On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 12:53 PM, Christopher Faylor
wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 07, 2010 at 11:16:54AM -0500, Yaakov (Cygwin/X) wrote:
>>On Wed, 2010-07-07 at 11:33 -0400, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>>> >Here's my question, though: given the incompatibilities mentioned, would
>>> >a cygwin1.dll built with
On Wed, Jul 07, 2010 at 11:16:54AM -0500, Yaakov (Cygwin/X) wrote:
>On Wed, 2010-07-07 at 11:33 -0400, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>> >Here's my question, though: given the incompatibilities mentioned, would
>> >a cygwin1.dll built with i686-w64-cygwin (mingw-w64) toolchain be 100%
>> >compatible wit
On Wed, 2010-07-07 at 11:33 -0400, Christopher Faylor wrote:
> >Here's my question, though: given the incompatibilities mentioned, would
> >a cygwin1.dll built with i686-w64-cygwin (mingw-w64) toolchain be 100%
> >compatible with current and past releases built with i686-pc-cygwin
> >(mingw.org) to
On Wed, Jul 07, 2010 at 10:22:17AM -0500, Yaakov (Cygwin/X) wrote:
>On Wed, 2010-07-07 at 08:58 -0400, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>> Unfortunately, it sounds like we've stepped into the middle of a dispute
>> between the mingw folks and the mingw64 folks. Maybe the best thing for
>> us to do would
On Wed, 2010-07-07 at 08:58 -0400, Christopher Faylor wrote:
> Unfortunately, it sounds like we've stepped into the middle of a dispute
> between the mingw folks and the mingw64 folks. Maybe the best thing for
> us to do would be to decide to use only one or the other but not both.
It does seem t
On Jul 7 10:49, Christopher Faylor wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 07, 2010 at 04:43:49PM +0200, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> >Ok, that's something I can live with. I don't understand the notion to
> >keep _WIN32_WINNT at 0x0400 anyway. The idea of this value is to be set
> >manually if I *don't* want modern
On Wed, Jul 07, 2010 at 04:43:49PM +0200, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>Ok, that's something I can live with. I don't understand the notion to
>keep _WIN32_WINNT at 0x0400 anyway. The idea of this value is to be set
>manually if I *don't* want modern functions, but the default should be
>to allow *all
On Jul 7 22:04, JonY wrote:
> On 7/7/2010 21:59, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> >On Jul 7 21:19, JonY wrote:
> >>On 7/7/2010 20:58, Christopher Faylor wrote:
> >>>On Wed, Jul 07, 2010 at 02:39:19PM +0200, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> Oh, and, talking about /opt or /usr, I'd prefer the above /usr/ming
On 7/7/2010 21:59, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
On Jul 7 21:19, JonY wrote:
On 7/7/2010 20:58, Christopher Faylor wrote:
On Wed, Jul 07, 2010 at 02:39:19PM +0200, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
Oh, and, talking about /opt or /usr, I'd prefer the above /usr/mingw*
sysroot idea. However, I don't like the
2010/7/7 Corinna Vinschen :
> On Jul 7 21:19, JonY wrote:
>> On 7/7/2010 20:58, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>> >On Wed, Jul 07, 2010 at 02:39:19PM +0200, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>> >>Oh, and, talking about /opt or /usr, I'd prefer the above /usr/mingw*
>> >>sysroot idea. However, I don't like the i
On Jul 7 21:19, JonY wrote:
> On 7/7/2010 20:58, Christopher Faylor wrote:
> >On Wed, Jul 07, 2010 at 02:39:19PM +0200, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> >>Oh, and, talking about /opt or /usr, I'd prefer the above /usr/mingw*
> >>sysroot idea. However, I don't like the idea in the least to keep
> >>two d
On Jul 7 08:58, Christopher Faylor wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 07, 2010 at 02:39:19PM +0200, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> >Oh, and, talking about /opt or /usr, I'd prefer the above /usr/mingw*
> >sysroot idea. However, I don't like the idea in the least to keep
> >two different versions of w32api around.
On 7/7/2010 20:58, Christopher Faylor wrote:
On Wed, Jul 07, 2010 at 02:39:19PM +0200, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
Oh, and, talking about /opt or /usr, I'd prefer the above /usr/mingw*
sysroot idea. However, I don't like the idea in the least to keep
two different versions of w32api around. It's o
On Wed, Jul 07, 2010 at 02:39:19PM +0200, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>Oh, and, talking about /opt or /usr, I'd prefer the above /usr/mingw*
>sysroot idea. However, I don't like the idea in the least to keep
>two different versions of w32api around. It's one target, so we should
>have one set of head
On Jul 7 08:08, Charles Wilson wrote:
> [accidentally posted to the main list; re-sent here]
>
> On 7/6/2010 10:35 PM, Yaakov (Cygwin/X) wrote:
> > On Tue, 2010-07-06 at 22:07 -0400, Christopher Faylor wrote:
> >> I'd want to check with Corinna on this but I am mildly opposed to putting
> >> this
[accidentally posted to the main list; re-sent here]
On 7/6/2010 10:35 PM, Yaakov (Cygwin/X) wrote:
> On Tue, 2010-07-06 at 22:07 -0400, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>> I'd want to check with Corinna on this but I am mildly opposed to putting
>> this in /opt. I don't think it makes sense there. But
On Jul 6 21:35, Yaakov S wrote:
> On Tue, 2010-07-06 at 22:07 -0400, Christopher Faylor wrote:
> > I'd want to check with Corinna on this but I am mildly opposed to putting
> > this in /opt. I don't think it makes sense there. But I haven't been
> > following closely, though. Where does Debian
On Tue, 2010-07-06 at 22:07 -0400, Christopher Faylor wrote:
> I'd want to check with Corinna on this but I am mildly opposed to putting
> this in /opt. I don't think it makes sense there. But I haven't been
> following closely, though. Where does Debian put these packages?
I'm working with Jon
On Wed, Jul 07, 2010 at 09:47:20AM +0800, JonY wrote:
>Hello,
>
>Can I ask what will be the next version of GCC be in Cygwin?
>
>I'm working on the mingw-w64 GCC package on Cygwin. Normally, anything
>cygwin gets installed to /usr, however, with gcc 4.6, the locales data
>clashes.
>
>Charles sugg
Hello,
Can I ask what will be the next version of GCC be in Cygwin?
I'm working on the mingw-w64 GCC package on Cygwin. Normally, anything
cygwin gets installed to /usr, however, with gcc 4.6, the locales data
clashes.
Charles suggested installing to /opt/mingw64, this doesn't fit well with
43 matches
Mail list logo
