This is the mail archive of the
cygwin-developers
mailing list for the Cygwin project.
Re: Latest 64 bit test stuff on sourceware
On Feb 10 19:59, Andy Koppe wrote:
> On 9 February 2013 21:01, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> > Hi guys,
> >
> > I just uploaded all the stuff I have 64 bit-wise to the sourceware ftp
> > area. See ftp://cygwin.com/pub/cygwin/64bit/
> >
> > What you see there is this:
> >
> > - binary-toolchain-x86_64-pc-linux-x-x86_64-pc-cygwin-20130209.tar.xz
> >
> > This >80 Megs archive contains a binary toolchain dir, representing
> > the full cross-build toolchain for x86_64 Linux, targeting
> > x86_64-pc-cygwin. This toolchain allows to build 64 bit Cygwin as
> > well as 64 bit Cygwin binaries. Only C and C++ are supported as
> > languages, since that's all I need. libgcc and libstdc++ only exist
> > as static libs so far.
> >
> > After unpacking you get a directory called x86_64-pc-cygwin. Assuming
> > you install to /opt, just add /opt/x86_64-pc-cygwin/bin to $PATH and
> > you should be all set. Again, this is a toolchain only running on
> > x86_64 Linux. I'm using it on Fedora 17 right now.
>
> Great to see this. I tried building mintty with it. After a bit of
> makefile hacking I got it to compile, albeit a bunch of warning that
> I'll need to address. Linking failed due to undefined references
> select() and gethostname() though, so I guess they're not implemented
> yet?
It's a bug. I noticed the same yesterday when I was trying to track
down a problem with an undefined gethostbyname symbol. I found that
there are two problems. In the first place I screwed up cygwin64.din
and a couple of symbols were missing. But even if I fix it, I can't
use gethostbyname since the application doesn't start due to a missing
symbol. Right now it *seems* that the 64 bit linker doesn't correctly
evaluate the `foo = bar' expressions in the .def file for somae reason.
But I'm still investigating.
> > - x86_64-pc-cygwin-binutils-20130209.patch
> > - x86_64-pc-cygwin-gcc-20130209.patch
> >
> > These are the current patchsets to binutils and gcc, relative to
> > current CVS/SVN HEAD. The problem I described in my mail
> > http://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin-developers/2013-02/msg00009.html
> > is yet unsolved, but the required changes to gcc to support that
> > scenario will be addresses by my collegue Kai Tietz within this
> > month.
>
> Is it worth attempting to build the toolchain on current Cygwin?
I was going to ask, but it seems a bit early. The above problem is
a real showstopper.
Corinna
--
Corinna Vinschen Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to
Cygwin Maintainer cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Red Hat