Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=513825 --- Comment #6 from Paolo Bonzini <[email protected]> 2009-07-27 04:23:33 EDT --- > I'm starting to get your point. The mingw32-pkg-config tool should really be > renamed to i686-pc-mingw32-pkg-config so it can be found by ./configure > scripts without manually fiddling the environment variables. We can do such a > change without any side effects. However, if we want to use the sysroot part > as mentioned in bug 513826 we need to perform a complete rebuild of all > mingw32 packages. Yes, that's why I filed a separate bug. > Another issue I'm afraid of is that binaries compiled using Fedora's > i686-pc-mingw32-gcc can't be mixed with binaries compiled with MinGW's GCC > running in a wine environment (or that strange side-effects are introduced, > possible due to bugs in wine) That would be a bug. One more reason to try what I'm doing. :-) > I think of FORTIFY_SOURCE as an aid to detect bugs in libraries/programs. I > can't think of any reason why this feature should be dropped. Fine by me. > > 2c) passing -mms-bitfields also has serious binary compatibility problems. > > IIRC, this parameter has became on by default in recent versions of GCC (I > don't have a link to confirm it right now). Unfortunately I checked the upstream sources and it's not. > The cache file is only really needed for the glib2 package because some > ./configure runtime checks are really required You should use CONFIG_SITE for this too. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. _______________________________________________ fedora-mingw mailing list [email protected] https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/fedora-mingw
