Re: MinGW build on master fails with Error 127

[Óscar Fuentes]

Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> writes:

>> The MSYS2 distribution named "MINGW64" already links to MSVCRT, as
>> always did, and that will not change. Is the UCRT64 distribution the one
>> that provides a gcc/binutils/everything-else that links to UCRT.
>
> So if the user has the UCRT version installed, they will necessarily
> link against UCRT64.

The user can have all distributions installed, if he wishes. They live
in separate directories.

There is an emacs package for each distribution (for instance:
mingw-w64-x86_64-emacs for MSVCRT on x86_64, mingw-w64-i686-emacs for
MSVCRT on x86, both built with gcc, mingw-w64-clang-x86_64-emacs for
UCRT64 built with Clang, etc). Each of those packages installs on a
different directory hierarchy.

If the user opts for building his own Emacs, he must take care of
installing it along its dependencies or running it after adjusting PATH
to point to the directory where the binary dependencies are stored. For
instance, if he builds in a CLANG64 shell, the resulting binary will
depend on UCRT and the dlls located in the subdirectory /clang64/bin of
the MSYS2 install.

> Does the wording in nt/INSTALL.W64 guide users to only one of these
> two variants (and if so, to which one), or is it generic, and the user
> will have to choose when they install MinGW?

It definitively points to the MINGW64 variant (the traditional one that
uses MSVCRT *and* runs on x86_64) because it lists the packages with the
mingw-w64-x86_64- prefix.

A cursory look also shows some important problems with that document.
For instance, gives a link to download the MSYS2 installer instead of
directing the user to the MSYS2 project webpage (msys2.org). That link
is no longer valid.

In general, I don't know why we (Emacs) make the effort of providing so
much guidance for building under MSYS2 when no similar level of detail
is provided for Debian, Fedora, Cygwin, etc. Actually, building Emacs
under MSYS2 is almost the same as the other platforms.

>> The commit message says "fclose fail during atexit as if they were
>> already closed" but indeed it doesn't describe a user-visible problem. I
>> can ask for more details, if you are interested.
>
> I am.

Ok, I'll ask the patch author.