2009/11/9 Kai Ruottu <kai.ruo...@wippies.com>:
> I myself would be more interested to get these tests for MinGW-hosted
> tools to work on Linux because that is
> the "preferred build platform for MinGW-hosted tools" for me. Some years
> ago I produced more than 100
> binutils+GCC+GDB/Insight toolchains for all kind of targets to be run on
> the MinGW runtime host. Just for a
> fun... The tests regarding to "does it work" happening on Windoze/MinGW
> via compiling apps there and then
> possibly running them on the built-in simulator in GDB or using the
> standalone "$target-run" simulator on the
> console.
The testruns we do for 32-bit and 64-bit of mingw-w64 are done on a
linux host by cross-compilation and are executed on a remote Windows
host. ssh and rexec can be used here. NightStrike can give here more
details.
> What has been the "problem" is that those very limited tests on the
> Windoze/MinGW host have this far
> showed the toolchains to work quite identically with their earlier
> equivalents on the Linux host, for instance
> a toolchain for "arm-elf" on MinGW-host working nicely on Windoze too.
> So really no need to wonder how
> to get "make check" to work with the Canadian-cross built toolchains...
Indeed, to make a cross-compiler (especially on cygwin and linux)
makes absolutely sense. In fact it is at the moment (as the expect
tool isn't ported for native Windows hosts) the only way to do
regression tests.
>> Is't it necessary to port newlib to pure MinGW environment ?
This makes no sense. Possibly your initial idea here isn't
understandable, so could you give us more details about this?
Regards,
Kai
--
| (\_/) This is Bunny. Copy and paste
| (='.'=) Bunny into your signature to help
| (")_(") him gain world domination
