This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [MinGW] Set NATIVE_SYSTEM_HEADER_DIR relative to configured prefix
On Mon, Dec 18, 2006 at 01:06:30PM -0800, Brian Dessent wrote:
> Bob Rossi wrote:
> > OK. Thanks Brian. I'll admit this is new to me, so I could be making
> > some stupid mistakes here. Basically, I needed wchar_t support with
> > mingw, and I was told that this works with the 4.x series. Which indeed
> > it does! So, I went to this page,
> > http://gcc.gnu.org/releases.html
> > and downloaded the most recent release. Is that not the proper thing to
> > do?
> That's fine if you just want a stable compiler. But the question you
> are asking seems to have morphed into "does support for a relocatable
> compiler on MinGW currently work" and for any kind of "what is the state
> of the code" sort of thing, you want to look at the current code (aka
> HEAD aka 4.3) and not the code on a release branch, which tends to be
> fairly static. Because if you find that something doesn't work, then
> you are left wondering if it is still broken in the current sources or
> if it was just broken on that release branch.
OK, I understand, I'm going to give this a shot soon then.
> > Well, it's about time someone solves them, don't you think? I'm here to
> > make a little noise I guess :). Unfortunatly, hacking gcc isn't really
> > my thing.
> > I'm wondering if I should try building gcc-3.4.2 to see if I can get a
> > relocatable version of gcc, or a version of gcc that works at all.
> > If I can, that would at least be a starting point, even though gcc-3.4.2
> > is useless to me.
> Comparing 3.4 to 4.x won't really tell you much, there have been so many
> changes. The gcc packages on the MinGW site are already relocatable
> (you can extract them anywhere and they work fine) and you can see
> exactly how they're built with the included build script. If anything
> this just implies to me that the code to support this has bitrotted, or
> there is some new bug.
I'd like to just build 3.4 so that I can at least say that the procedure
I'm following is correct. If I can't get it to work with 3.4 than I'm
doing something incredibly stupid, and I'd like to know that.
I agree with your line of reasoning above. I'll try svn head soon.