This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Cross Compiler Unix - Windows
- From: Kai Ruottu <karuottu at mbnet dot fi>
- To: Mike Stump <mrs at apple dot com>
- Cc: gcc-help at gcc dot gnu dot org, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2005 10:42:07 +0300
- Subject: Re: Cross Compiler Unix - Windows
- References: <2FE9AB92-1651-11DA-B6E0-003065BDF310@apple.com>
- Reply-to: karuottu at mbnet dot fi
Mike Stump wrote:
On Friday, August 26, 2005, at 12:59 AM, Kai Ruottu wrote:
Is there any sane reasons for this on systems which never have had that
non-GNU native 'cc' ?
Consistency. This is only bad if one abhors consistency and
I understand people coming from all kind of native cultures and
so the unified 'one culture' world seen with cross-GCCs, sounds
strange. For me the cross world is the familiar and all those native
worlds are the strange ones...
A better approach could have been to think with every $target, how
on earth those proprietary headers & libraries could be installed
into the "standard GCC" install layout. Linux could have served as
the example for the standard GCC just as well as those GCCs which
produce stuff for Windoze.
All the complaints about apps requiring them being built natively,
not by cross-compiling them, could have been rare. If GCC would have
had its standard search places and the stuff in these found
automatically, no need to put any
like options into the GCC command line in the sources when compiling
them with GCC would have been necessary. The need for these seemingly
comes from the need to use those proprietary 'cc's to produce the same
Ok, I don't even remember when I have needed the original native GCCs
for any builds. Maybe my repertoire is seriously limited nowadays, only
GCCs, binutils, GDB/Insights and glibcs/newlibs... If requiring to build
bash, tcsh etc. shells, whole Linux distros, maybe I would meet the
problems. But were the problems there already or has the "native only"
attitude caused them? What if crosscompiling had been the default