From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 8652 invoked by alias); 16 Jul 2013 15:39:52 -0000 Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help@cygwin.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-owner@cygwin.com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin@cygwin.com Received: (qmail 8627 invoked by uid 89); 16 Jul 2013 15:39:52 -0000 X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-2.2 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_20,KHOP_THREADED,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_NO,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_YE,RDNS_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 Received: from Unknown (HELO out1-smtp.messagingengine.com) (66.111.4.25) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.84/v0.84-167-ge50287c) with ESMTP; Tue, 16 Jul 2013 15:39:51 +0000 Received: from compute3.internal (compute3.nyi.mail.srv.osa [10.202.2.43]) by gateway1.nyi.mail.srv.osa (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5E65C2117F for ; Tue, 16 Jul 2013 11:39:43 -0400 (EDT) Received: from frontend1 ([10.202.2.160]) by compute3.internal (MEProxy); Tue, 16 Jul 2013 11:39:43 -0400 Received: from [172.31.32.34] (unknown [192.160.117.131]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 1B235C00E81; Tue, 16 Jul 2013 11:39:43 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <51E5693E.9090207@cwilson.fastmail.fm> Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2013 15:52:00 -0000 From: Charles Wilson User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130620 Thunderbird/17.0.7 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: cygwin@cygwin.com Subject: mingw.org cross compiler [Was: problem with cvs binary?] References: <51E54596.5040400@cwilson.fastmail.fm> <20130716131044.GJ2712@calimero.vinschen.de> In-Reply-To: <20130716131044.GJ2712@calimero.vinschen.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2013-07/txt/msg00326.txt.bz2 On 7/16/2013 9:10 AM, Corinna Vinschen wrote: > Are the mingw cross compilers still necessary, now that we have > modern mingw-w64 toolchains? On Fedora they aren't shipped since > F17, which already came with mingw-w64 toolchains either. No, in the sense that you could use the mingw-w64 i686 toolchain to generate 32bit "native" windows apps instead. Yes, because the two toolchains are not mutually compatible (different ABI, different exception model, different threading library, different w32api/runtime library). If you are using a cygwin $host to develop, specifically, mingw.org-distribution compatible apps/libs...then you need the mingw.org cross compiler. I don't know how many people that represents -- it might just be me and Earnie -- but I'm not ready to declare mingw(.org)-gcc dead just yet. I at least want to update our current offering to something more current than 4.5.x, AND it's necessary on i686 because recent gmp/mpfr/mpc library updates have broken mingw-gcc. If, after this update, we want to declare EOL on mingw(.org)-gcc, we could discuss that on cygwin-apps. -- Chuck -- Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/ Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple