[CLN-list] CLN vs weird mixture of Cygwin and MinGW [Was: Results of building cln-1.1.13 ...]

[Richard Haney]

--- Sheplyakov Alexei <varg at theor.jinr.ru> wrote:

> If you insist on using Cygwin+MinGW, you need at least to
> 
> 1) give the configure script proper --build and --host arguments,
>    e.g.,
> 
>    --build=i586-mingw32msvc --host=i586-mingw32msvc

I thought about this some more and also perused apparent script-file
definitions since my last post on this subject.  It appears that "uname
-s = CYGWIN_NT-5.1" is _supposed_ to be the "kernel name".  That sounds
like some variant of "cygwin" would be the appropriate value, and not
some variant of "mingw32".  (But I can see why some variant of "msvc"
_might_ be thought to be appropriate as part of the identification;
however, no variant of "msvc" seems to be valid, as far as I can tell.)
 So it seems to me that the configure script is coming up with exactly
the right value "i686-pc-cygwin" since my processor is a Celeron
processor.

But I suppose the answer may hinge upon what is considered a "kernel"
for practical purposes.

So I guess what's puzzling me is why there should be any problem with
"Cygwin+MinGW" in the way that I'm doing it.  I seem to recall that I
read somewhere where even the Cygwin gcc project eventually came over
to using MinGW gcc as the standard compiler for Cygwin.  The only major
difference was that the new gcc no longer used "cygwin1.dll" to satisfy
links, but rather started using the Microsoft Windows system DLLs
directly.  I don't see how that should be of interest to the configure
script; that fact seems to be something that would ordinarily be
"hidden" from the configure script.

Best regards,

Richard


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com