Robert Collins wrote: > Yes. I even documented all this some time back on > http://www.cygwin.com/ml/cygwin-apps/2001-11/msg00634.html, but > predicatably enough, no patches where forthcoming. Probably due to the > complete lack of a prebuilt bz2lib for mingw (that my cursory searches > have looked for).
https://sourceforge.net/projects/mingwrep/ >>I wonder if we need a "mingw-libs" package. >> > > Yes, please, please, yes. I would really really love it if some of the > common libs (zlib, bz2lib, stdc++) where available in a setup.exe > installable pacakge. Yes, I like this too -- but I'm nervous about it growing ridiculously large. What if (eventually) setup.ini turns into XML? Do we put a mingw build of libxml into 'mingw-libs'? How far does this go? (visions of full{mingw}.exe) OTOH, we've already discussed (and discarded, thank g-d) the idea of (for instance) the zlib maintainer providing both a cygwin-setup-installable zlib package (/usr/bin/cygz.dll, /usr/lib/libz.[dll|a]) and a cygwin-setup-installable mingw-zlib package (/usr/bin/mgwz.dll, /usr/lib/mingw/libz.[dll|a]). Ditto bzip2, libxml, ... we are not a mingw-porting factory. >>2) The above won't work in a cross build environment. You could say >> CC='i686-pc-cygwin-gcc -mno-cygwin'..., I guess. > for cross compiles: > ../setup/configure --host=i686-pc-mingw32 --build-i686-pc-linux > should do it (assuming a mingw32 cross compiler is present), or a > combination using the CC string you have above with the mingw host will > work too. whatever happened to the idea of an official cygwin package, that contained a true cygwin-host, mingw-target cross compiler? Didn't somebody or other volunteer to provide that? (Granted, we still need 'cygwin-gcc -mno-cygwin' for the "self-hosting" feature of cygwin1.dll, but there's no real need to *require* cygwin-gcc -mno-cygwin for setup.exe, now that setup has been moved out of the winsup tree) >>anything that is non-simple. I haven't looked at it in a >>while, though, so maybe things have changed. >> > > It really depends on what you want to do. Some stuff it does > spectalularly well, some things it has trouble with. With the 'cross > compiling but not' approach, it would almost certainly have some trouble > :}. see above, true cross compiler... --Chuck