On Jul 14 14:26, Radek Barton via Cygwin-patches wrote: > Hello. > > > Can you please explain how you're planning to go forward from here, so > we can all understand if and why this patch makes sense during bootstrap? > > My intention is to upstream a minimum set of changes that would allow to > build `cygwin1.dll` and `crt0.o`, respectively bootstrap either a Linux-based > or Windows x64 Cygwin `aarch64-pc-cygwin` cross-compilation GNUÂ toolchain. > With the toolchain available and Cygwin build passing and tests running, the > community can further contribute to the project while having CI checks to > compare with. > > One can check out what does this actually include in > https://github.com/Windows-on-ARM-Experiments/newlib-cygwin/compare/woarm64...aarch64-patch-series1-v1 > branch where the commit messages have `SENT` prefix if the change has been > already submitted to the mailing list, `TODO` prefix if some rework is needed > and `SKIP` prefix if that change is there only to allow validation on our CI > https://github.com/Windows-on-ARM-Experiments/newlib-cygwin/blob/woarm64/.github/workflows/cygwin.yml. > > As you can see here > https://github.com/Windows-on-ARM-Experiments/newlib-cygwin/actions/runs/16268410995/job/45929514517, > with changes from that branch, the tests pass rate is already 216/287 that > could serve as the baseline. > > Nitpick: Currently, our CI is using an `aarch64-pc-cygwin` Ubuntu and Windows > x64 Cygwin host cross-compilation GNU toolchains, pre-built from our > development branch that contains everything we've done so far but once the > above branch will be upstreamed there will be only minimum changes left on > top of that. > > In context of this patch, the only changes left to add to `gendef` to achieve > such baseline results are in > https://github.com/Windows-on-ARM-Experiments/newlib-cygwin/commit/c7e082d457e0b2a356d1fce169c2224b46e3a0af > commit. They are surely incorrect in a sense of the full signals handling > implementations as they are just relocating to the target symbol. I was going > to submit them as a separate patches to open discussion whether such > temporary implementations could be accepted. Nevertheless, IMO it's better to > keep them as separate commits in the history. The full-features signals > implementation is in progress but it will take some time to finish and it's > actually not needed to bootstrap the cross-compilers and get some baseline > test results. > > Please, let me know if something deserves more explanation. > > Radek
Thanks for the explanation. I pushed your patch. Looking forward to more :) Thanks, Corinna
