2014-11-03 16:45 GMT+01:00 Baruch Burstein <bmburst...@gmail.com>: > On Mon, Nov 3, 2014 at 2:37 PM, Ruben Van Boxem <vanboxem.ru...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> 2014-11-03 10:30 GMT+01:00 Baruch Burstein <bmburst...@gmail.com>: >> >>> I am curious why only a few of the executables get prefixed versions? I >>> just tried running a certain makefile with prefixed versions of the >>> toolchain, and it failed looking for the prefixed versions of 'ar' and >>> 'windres'. Easily solvable (make a copy and prefix it), but I am still >>> curious why some get it by default while others don't? >>> >> >> Because this is a native toolchain. Native toolchains don't have >> everything prefixed. Your makefile shouldn't be using any prefixes, and >> just call the bare "gcc" etc. instead. >> > > a. Then why are some prefixed? >
That's the whole GCC/binutils/autotools ecosystem that does that and uses that. Don't ask me for the reasons, I did not write the tools way back when. > b. Is there another way to determine in the makefile if compiling for x64 > or x32 without using the compiler executable name? > First, a makefile shouldn't care if it's building for 32 or 64-bit. That is a distinction you'd want to make at the code-level, if you need to make it at all. If you want to be able to cross-compile, a good way is to have the makefile "accept an option" like CROSS_PREFIX, which could be "i686-w64-mingw32-", and passed in like: make CROSS_PREFIX=i686-w64-mingw32- And prefixing all calls to the tools with this prefix. For native toolchains, just "make" with an empty CROSS_PREFIX would work. Cheers, Ruben
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________ Mingw-w64-public mailing list Mingw-w64-public@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/mingw-w64-public
