My goal is to build the cross-compiler for MinGW-w64 starting from the
native MinGW and source packages GMP (5.0.2) , PPL (0.11), CLooG
(0.15.11) and binutils-2.21.53.
From config.log:
It was created by configure, which was generated by GNU Autoconf 2.64.
Invocation command line was
$ ../../../src/binutils/binutils-2.21.53/configure
--build=i686-w64-mingw32 --host=x86_64-w64-mingw32
--prefix=/mingw64 --with-sysroot=/mingw64
--target=x86_64-w64-mingw32 --disable-multilib
--with-ppl=/third_party/spt/i686-w64-mingw32
--with-cloog=/third_party/spt/i686-w64-mingw32
I have read the thread
http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.comp.gnu.mingw.w64.general/4453 from
this past month.
For the reasons discussed in the thread above, the configure script
assumes x86_64-w64-mingw32-ar.exe will be used as the archive tool.
Unfortunately, MinGW does not name its binutils execs that way
out-of-the-box and libiberty fails during compilation.
As the thread suggests, renaming (or copying - as I did) the ar.exe file
in /mingw/bin to x86_64-w64-mingw32-ar.exe does indeed allow the build
to work. I'm sure that setting AR=/mingw/bin/ar.exe would similarly
work. I also saw the suggestion to set the --build option to
'x86_64-w64-mingw32', but as I am building with the 32-bit toolchain,
that doesn't make any sense to me (and I didn't try it either).
Having acknowledged those work-arounds, I have objections to this
approach that can be summarized as follows:
> These extra steps seem unnecessary to me - shouldn't the
configuration work with MinGW as-released?
> Given that I am building with the 32-bit toolchain, requiring
x86_64-w64-mingw32-ar is at best confusing.
If you do insist on a triple, shouldn't it be
'i686-w64-mingw32-ar' when --build is set to i686-w64-mingw32?
> When binutils are installed (using make install) with the above
configuration, *ALL* the utilities are named
without the 'triple' (i.e. x86_64-w64-mingw32) in both
/mingw64/bin and /mingw64/x86_64-w64-mingw32/bin.
What's going to happen to those "autotooled programs/libraries
[that] rely on the host to compile
in some specific way." when they are built against that toolchain?
(quote lifted from Ruben Van Boxem
<http://search.gmane.org/?author=Ruben+Van+Boxem&sort=date> | 16 Mar
17:11 - above thread).
I would have no problem with requiring the triple prefixes on the
binutils execs if the original MinGW distribution came that way, the
configure script used the proper triple when using the 32-bit toolchain
and the installation target for x86_64-w64-mingw32 binutils played the
game consistently as well.
Does the above have any merit from your viewpoint?
Anil E. Sahukar
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF email is sponsosred by:
Try Windows Azure free for 90 days Click Here
http://p.sf.net/sfu/sfd2d-msazure
_______________________________________________
Mingw-w64-public mailing list
Mingw-w64-public@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/mingw-w64-public
