This is the mail archive of the
gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Question for successful cygwin/gcc builders
- From: Christopher Faylor <cgf at redhat dot com>
- To: Dockeen <dockeen at mchsi dot com>
- Cc: dewar at gnat dot com, gcc-help at gcc dot gnu dot org, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2002 09:49:11 -0500
- Subject: Re: Question for successful cygwin/gcc builders
- References: <20020228033640.1D4DAF28CD@nile.gnat.com> <NCBBLKKJGBJOLDFMCKFPAEANCAAA.dockeen@mchsi.com>
- Reply-to: gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org, gcc-help at gcc dot gnu dot org
[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