Question for successful Cygwin/gcc builders

Question for successful Cygwin/gcc builders

[Dockeen]

I need to ask some questions of this August community...

After you built the gcc suite, did you compile anything with the
new compiler.  I ask this because I have found over many attempts
that I can have what looks like an OK build, but the compilers
do not work.  By that I mean you can not compile even a simple
"Hello World" program on g++ or g77.  When I look closer, I see 
that libraries are missing and that it is obvious the build did
not really succeed.

I would just assume its me, but I have been able to correspond
with one of the "successful" build people, who, upon working with
me, discovered that his build did not work either. 

Please note that it is possible, if you are as "talented"
as I am at fouling things up to have a mixed environment
between the standard Cygwin gcc and the new, and think that
you have had a successful install when you have not.

Assuming that you have compiled "Hello world" and / or your
standard test set, let me ask this.  What is your Cygwin 
configuration.  Did you use Unix or DOS option?  Did you install
anything additional?.  What environment variables (such as
LIBRARY_PATH etc.) did you set, and where did you set them.
Oh, almost forgot, did you do a full install of all Cygwin
elements, and did you do a source install?

Did you modify any files in the source? Heck, did you
use gunzip, bunzip2 or winzip?  Did you install
anything or do anything after "make install".

These are pieces of information that are every bit as neccessary
as simply including the contents of gcc -v for someone like
me to be able to duplicate your results.

I have tried probably 30 - 40 times to get this to work with the
3 series, on 98, NT, 2000 and XP.  It has never worked.  A
number of people have kindly given me their recipes (at least
as far as what .configure options they used, do make bootstrap
etc.).  Not one of these recipes has worked.  I have during
this process torn out Cywin by the roots and reinstalled many
times.  I have put everything I could think of into environment
variables.  Despite my self-depricating sense of humor, I am
not stupid.  So there is something up.  Either I am missing
some trick that "everyone knows" or there is more here than 
meets the eye.

I am cross posting this to both gcc help and gcc, as several
requests for more specific information in the last few days
to the gcc-help have been ignored.

Rest assured, if I find out something stupid I am doing, I 
will post it in glorious, humorous, lets all laugh at Wayne
fashion.  Just show me, and the rest of us how building
3.0.X can work and does work!

Wayne Keen

Re: Question for successful cygwin/gcc builders

[Christopher Faylor]

[NOTE! Reply-To set to the mailing list]

On Wed, Feb 27, 2002 at 09:56:58PM -0600, Dockeen wrote:
>I did not state that it is impossible.
>
>In your post you hit the key words.  It is tricky.
>
>Not one of the recipes that has been sent to me, or were available
>through recent postings of success have given any information about
>doing anything to deal with tricky.
>
>Most conversations I have had with successful builders have essentially
>been, "its easy, just:"
>./configure *couple of simple options*
>make bootstrap
>make
>
>And it works.  This does not appear to be the case.  It would be nice
>if people, like yourself, who have done it right would take a few
>minutes to show off and state what problems you ran into, and how you
>worked around them, the community, and myself would be grateful.  I
>would be VERY grateful!

Out of curiousity, I'm wondering if you have ever built gcc anywhere
other than cygwin.  It should be as simple as the above and, in 
my experience, it usually is.

In theory, cygwin is supposed to make things as easy to build on
Windows as on UNIX.  However, if you've never built anything on UNIX
this distinction isn't too helpful.

cgf

Re: Question for successful Cygwin/gcc builders

[Christian Jönsson]

On Wed, Feb 27, 2002 at 09:56:58PM -0600, Dockeen wrote:
> In your post you hit the key words.  It is tricky.

hmm, i've built and tested for a long time on cygwin/win2k, no problem
AFAIK, not even tricky :-) are you saying nt4 is quite different than
win2k?

> ./configure *couple of simple options*

uhm, we do out of tree boostraps, right?

Cheers,

/ChJ

(off to work now)

RE: Question for successful Cygwin/gcc builders

[Dockeen]

I did not state that it is impossible.

In your post you hit the key words.  It is tricky.

Not one of the recipes that has been sent to me,
or were available through recent postings of
success have given any information about doing
anything to deal with tricky.

Most conversations I have had with successful
builders have essentially been, "its easy,
just:"
./configure *couple of simple options*
make bootstrap
make

And it works. This does not appear to be the
case.  It would be nice if people, like
yourself, who have done it right would take
a few minutes to show off and state what problems
you ran into, and how you worked around them,
the community, and myself would
be grateful.  I would be VERY grateful! 

Wayne Keen

-----Original Message-----
From: Robert Dewar [mailto:dewar@gnat.com]
Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2002 9:37 PM
To: dockeen@mchsi.com; gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org; gcc@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: Re: Question for successful Cygwin/gcc builders


We build GCC 3 on NT all the time, and have generally been successful
in getting the build to work including Ada. Yes, occasionally the build
is broken, but most of the time things go smoothly. It is definitely
tricky to build on NT, and takes a bit of experience to figure out all
the issues, but the impression Wayne gives that no one can build on NT
seems bogus to me.

Re: Question for successful Cygwin/gcc builders

[Robert Dewar]

We build GCC 3 on NT all the time, and have generally been successful
in getting the build to work including Ada. Yes, occasionally the build
is broken, but most of the time things go smoothly. It is definitely
tricky to build on NT, and takes a bit of experience to figure out all
the issues, but the impression Wayne gives that no one can build on NT
seems bogus to me.