This is the mail archive of the
gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
[Bug bootstrap/50229] [5/6/7/8 Regression] Can't cross compile for i686-apple-darwin10 from x86_64-redhat_linux
- From: "egallager at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- To: gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 15:48:03 +0000
- Subject: [Bug bootstrap/50229] [5/6/7/8 Regression] Can't cross compile for i686-apple-darwin10 from x86_64-redhat_linux
- Auto-submitted: auto-generated
- References: <bug-50229-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50229
Eric Gallager <egallager at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|WAITING |NEW
--- Comment #29 from Eric Gallager <egallager at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to Ruben Van Boxem from comment #28)
> (In reply to Eric Gallager from comment #27)
> > (In reply to Iain Sandoe from comment #21)
> > > (In reply to Francois-Xavier Coudert from comment #20)
> > > > This PR appears to report two different issues:
> > > > 1. cross-compiler targeting Darwin
> > > > 2. cross-compiler hosted on Darwin
> > > in short (2) is very definitely "works for me"
> > So does this bug need to stay open then?
>
> I reported the original issue using Fedora's Mac OS X cross compiler
> toolchains that were available at the time. They are still described here,
> but the repo has become unavailable:
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/MinGW/CrossCompilerFramework
>
> I cannot seem to locate an active repository providing these now.
>
> So it is really your number one. If the problem lies outside of GCC sources,
> perhaps it's best to close this issue, but as it used to work in GCC 4.6, it
> seems something changed that made this setup nonfunctional.
Well looking back at comment #21 Iain did say some of his patches were for GCC
so at least some of the problem is in GCC sources, even if most of it is in the
rest of the toolchain... I'll change the status to NEW since it's not you we're
WAITING on.