[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Mingw-cross-env-list] Re: About porting of GCC and possible redunda

From: Kārlis Repsons
Subject: Re: [Mingw-cross-env-list] Re: About porting of GCC and possible redundancy
Date: Mon, 26 Apr 2010 07:31:18 +0000
User-agent: KMail/1.12.4 (Linux/2.6.32-gentoo-r7-2010-03-28; KDE/4.3.5; x86_64; ; )

On Sunday 25 April 2010 21:45:09 Volker Grabsch wrote:
> The official MinGW project does not only support GCC 3.4.5. It also
>  supports GCC 4.4.0, and since a few days GCC 4.5.0.
A bit funny: there are people, who can port GCC, but there are no people, who 
can package it within the project... If I get it right. Well, that was for 
cross-compile on Linux...

> However, for historical reasons, mingw-cross-env uses mingwrt and w32api
> from MinGW, but the GCC from TDM, a small fork of MinGW.
So MinGW and TDM (sorry, I see for first time, who are they?) have some 
parallel efforts on GCC? Why don't they just cooperate to produce one, if you 
have some idea?

> Also note that patches from MinGW wander
> back to the GCC project, so some GCC versions seem to be usable for
> win32 cross compiling without any extra patches of the MinGW project,
> because those are already included. However, we haven't yet checked in
> how far that really works.
Is it supposed, that in time the original GCC will support cross-compiling to 
some platforms and just their runtime environments and APIs will need to be 

> BTW, in addition to GCC/mingwrt/w32api there is a fourth important
> package: Binutils. 
> So when we
> speak about porting, Binutils is a non-issue.
Just still curious: how much work there currently is just to port GCC and why 
(basically) it has to be done?

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]