[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: [Mingw-cross-env-list] Qt 4.7 (help wanted)

From: Volker Grabsch
Subject: Re: [Mingw-cross-env-list] Qt 4.7 (help wanted)
Date: Wed, 2 Jun 2010 18:40:19 +0200
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17)

Mark Brand <address@hidden> schrieb:
>> 1) Clean Solution
>> =================
>> I think the only "clean" solution is to
>>      * remove the "#include_next" from MinGW-runtime's<float.h>:
>>              usr/i686-pc-mingw32/include/float.h
>>      * add a conditional "#include_next" to GCC's<float.h>:
>>              usr/lib/gcc/i686-pc-mingw32/4.5.0/include/float.h
>>        (similar to the "#include_next" mechanism of GCC's<stdint.h>:
>>         usr/lib/gcc/i686-pc-mingw32/4.5.0/include/stdint.h)
>> However, this solution requires changes to GCC as well as MinGW-runtime,
>> so whoever wants to solve it should discuss that with both groups.
>> I certainly don't have the time for that, but maybe someone else does?
> This is what my "diff" from a few posts ago did,

Sorry, I overlooked that. Well, so we came independently to the
same conclusion. That's a strong sign that something must be right. :-)

However, you added some $(SED) actions. would you mind changing it
such that you provide proper patches? (i.e. create a "gcc-*.patch" file
and a "mingwrt-*.patch" file)

> except that the
> "#include_next" in GCC's <float.h> is not conditional, but this does not  
> matter for us since we only do mingw.

That will become important when we want to offer that patch into GCC,
which we should certainly do (at least after discussing with MinGW).

Before, we should offer the mingwrt patch to MinGW, as their "include_next"
currently doesn't work anyway except when used with a badly patched GCC,
so it won't do any harm if they remove their "include_next" directive.

> Or, while holding your nose, just swap the 2 float.h files after gcc is  
> installed.

No, I don't think we should do that. This almost begs for trouble.

> It's probably feasible, but so far I think I prefer applying 1) to  
> mingw-cross-env installations.

Me too. Sorry, I just didn't see your patch mentioned above. Of course
the clean solution is preferable over the workaround. :-)

> The other thing to consider is that other distros are already doing this  
> kind of thing.

What do you mean? What exactly are they doing?

> I expect that this will eventually be sorted out among gcc, mingw, and  
> mingw-w64 even without one of us volunteering to coordinate it. :)

Nevertheless I think we should do that. If you are lazy, just cross-post
to all 3 lists (MinGW, GCC, Mingw-cross-env). I think that should be okay
in this particular case.


Volker Grabsch
NotJustHosting GbR

reply via email to

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