This is the mail archive of the
cygwin@sourceware.cygnus.com
mailing list for the Cygwin project.
Re: cygwin-inst-20000304 query
- To: DJ Delorie <dj at delorie dot com>
- Subject: Re: cygwin-inst-20000304 query
- From: Brendan J Simon <Brendan dot Simon at ctam dot com dot au>
- Date: Wed, 08 Mar 2000 09:26:22 +1100
- CC: cygwin at sourceware dot cygnus dot com
- Organization: CTAM Pty Ltd, Australia.
- References: <38C441C9.D83FB437@ctam.com.au> <200003070146.UAA19157@envy.delorie.com>
- Reply-To: Brendan dot Simon at ctam dot com dot au
DJ Delorie wrote:
> Right. We're working on migrating all the packages to the
> i686-pc-cygwin target identifier.
Does this mean that some programs wont run on CPUs pre 686 (ie. 386, 486,
586) ?
> > I have unpacked the cygwin-inst-20000304.tar.gz archive to the
> > c:/cygnus/cygwin-b20/H-i586-cygwin32 directory. Is this the correct
> > place for it ?
>
> That is an acceptable place for it. The H-* directory exists only in
> case you want to support multiple *hosts* (like linux or solaris) via
> a file server or something. In the next release, that H-* layer will
> go away. The next subdirectory down from that is for supported
> targets (like embedded boards or cross compilers), which is what the
> i686-pc-cywin in the snapshots is really referring to.
>
> If it's confusing, don't worry about it. Just do what works for you.
I'm OK with it. I have built and installed powerpc cross-compilers and even
done a Canadian cross for the cygwin environment. I think that getting rid
of the H-* layer is a very good idea in general. I now understand why it is
there. Will getting rid of it make it harder to support multiple hosts using
a shared file server ? Since this scenario is not very common I guess it
would be easy for a system administrator to add the extra directory layers to
represent the multiple host architectures.
> In your case, you'd have (probably):
>
> build i586-pc-linux-gnu
> host i586-pc-cygwin32
> target i686-pc-cygwin
>
> although we all know that the last two are really the same thing.
Do we ? I don't know that. How can and i586 be the same as an i686 ?
Thanks,
Brendan Simon.
--
Want to unsubscribe from this list?
Send a message to cygwin-unsubscribe@sourceware.cygnus.com