Yaakov (Cygwin Ports) wrote on 11 September 2008 12:18:
>> libgmp3, libmpfr1 - These may become statically linked in a future
>> version.
>
> Why bother?
Hence the "may". I don't plan to bother for myself, but it depends if I
start getting loads of ".... gcc doesn't seem to do anything and $? is 53 ..."
bug reports.
>> ./gcc4-4.3.0-1-cygport.local gcc4-4.3.0-1 all
>> unfortunately I've used a forked cygport script while
>> testing this. the stable release will rely only
>> on the official cygport release.
>
> Are there any patches that you still need in cygport for gcc4?
:) If so, I will submit upstream. Actually I think I can probably do it
all with the hooks and overrides, but I haven't got up-to-date with the
prep_gnu_info changes yet ...
>
>> ./gcc4-java-4.3.0-1.tar.bz2
>
> This seems to be incomplete; just gcj, no gij or libgcj.
That's all I get from a default build, I'm not sure if --disable-libjava is
the upstream default right now but knowing the somewhat sorry state of libjava
on cygwin I wouldn't be surprised. (I'll give it a go and if anything manages
to compile, I'll ship it.)
>
>> ./gcc4-runtime-4.3.0-1.tar.bz2
>
> In debian, this package is called libgcc1 for most arches. I would
> suggest a similar naming, but I see the DLL isn't versioned; why not?
Because I didn't use libtool to do it. I think Aaron's patch to build
libgcc shared from upstream does it properly, so I'll be adopting it if I can,
otherwise I'll just crudely bodge it in.
>> - Shared libgcc
>> (selectable by --shared-libgcc/--static-libgcc flag)
>
> What's the story with shared libgfortran3/libobjc2/libstdc++6?
Didn't look at fortran and objc.
The problem with making shared libstdc - it can be done - is that it shows
regressions, because win32 doesn't currently fully support the semantics of
weak symbols like ELF does. Specifically, since a DLL has to be
fully-resolved when it is linked, any references to e.g. operators new/delete
get statically resolved as internal calls within the DLL, and then when you
attempt to define a custom operator new/delete override within your
executable, it doesn't get interposed between the already-resolved calls and
their destinations within the DLL.
This would make the C++ compiler non-compliant, so as it all works OK with a
static library, I'm shipping it that way for now.
I plan to work on improving weak symbol support in binutils to resolve this
problem in the long run; I think we can make it work with a little bit of
thunk stubbery[*].
> Also, is OpenMP available? Is it being worked on?
? dunno. That's a whole nother story, isn't it?
cheers,
DaveK
[*] - Or perhaps stunk thubbery[**]...
[**] - Bring me .... a thubbery!
--
Can't think of a witty .sigline today....
--
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
