[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: "Re: libbfd, libtool & Win32" and "Re: Building a MinGW GLib etc..."

From: Guido Draheim
Subject: Re: "Re: libbfd, libtool & Win32" and "Re: Building a MinGW GLib etc..."
Date: Tue, 17 Sep 2002 00:46:42 +0200
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.1) Gecko/20020826

Max Bowsher wrote:
Robert Boehne wrote:


I took a look at the patch, and I don't have any objections
to it being checked in to Libtool.  Can I get some comment
from the mingwin people before I take the leap and
check it in?

Well, ummm... thankyou!

But perhaps I should remove/fix some of the work-in-progress comments in there?
Like "Let's try this...". I did say "work-in-progress", intending to tidy up and
document reasons for the changes before submitting for checkin.

Also, since that patch is the first ever time I have looked at the libtool
source, I would appreciate scrutiny from the libtool side. Whilst almost
everything I've touched is inside mingw/cygwin conditionals, I should mention
that I do not know anything about writing portable Bourne shell.

well, you have me asking for scrutiny atleast ;-) I did not get the point
on the first coarse reading but I had a hard day anyway, and Robert does
already say it okay, and he's the best in reading libtool patches :-=)

as for writing portable bourneshell: crosscompiling is not a task that
runs on oldish hardware. don't worry, and if someone comes along later
telling of problem, it can be fixed then ;-) and ming/cygw native
compiling is not run in a problematic bourne shell, right...

There is one major decision that needs to be made: Keep or remove support for
old versions of the mingw toolchain.
All the -mdll stuff is deprecated in favour of gcc -shared now.

Option 1) Remove support pre "gcc -shared" toolchains
Pro: simplifies maintenance.
Con: might upset some people.

How old may a gcc/binutils pair be? My oldest crosscompilers
are gcc 2.95.3 and ld --version reports And for
all I know, these are in fact the oldest versions around,
no one want to go back beyond, I guess.

Is that enough, Max?

Option 2) Keep support for old syntax toolchains
Pro: does anyone actually use non-current mingw?
Con: Messy & probably not often tested now.

see other. If all breaks on that one, we might try with
subclassing build environment with another mingw*
extension for the star that can be tested for in
sensitive parts. Know what I mean?

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]