Devs: MinGW: Give me a hand, I'm getting desperate here.

[nmn]

[Solved] Devs: MinGW: Give me a hand, I'm getting desperate here.

Becoming incredibly obvious, I have no idea what I'm doing. I'm trying to compile with Igor's script, working as per usual, however, binutils complains and crashes over makeinfo not being installed. However. On the very same terminal:

# makeinfo --version
makeinfo (GNU texinfo) 4.11

Copyright (C) 2007 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
License GPLv3+: GNU GPL version 3 or later <http://gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html>
This is free software: you are free to change and redistribute it.
There is NO WARRANTY, to the extent permitted by law.

# make --version
GNU Make 3.81
Copyright (C) 2006  Free Software Foundation, Inc.
This is free software; see the source for copying conditions.
There is NO warranty; not even for MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A
PARTICULAR PURPOSE.

This program built for x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu

# gcc --version
gcc (SUSE Linux) 4.3.0
Copyright (C) 2008 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
This is free software; see the source for copying conditions.  There is NO
warranty; not even for MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.

Yes, I'm using SuSE's GCC. I thought my GCC was broke so i reverted to the SuSEFactory one with the same results (It was while doing some unrelated realtime linking stuff, and It turns out I was wrong anyways >_<)

Please, Tell me I'm an idiot, whatever, just tell me why what's happening is happening.

http://pastebin.com/d72e2e003 - build.sh, my modified version of Igor's script for MinGW with GCC 4
http://pastebin.com/d7b8a67a0 - configure results for binutils
http://pastebin.com/d74915af0 - make results for binutils

And yes, bad me for doing a bunch of crap on root. I'm just plain being lazy there.

edit: solved by using newer binutils... (Gah!)

 

[Richard42]

# make --version
GNU Make 3.81
Copyright (C) 2006 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
This is free software; see the source for copying conditions.
There is NO warranty; not even for MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A
PARTICULAR PURPOSE.

This program built for x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu

# gcc --version
gcc (SUSE Linux) 4.3.0

Does MinGW support cmake? If not, then we're going to have to either take Slougi's KDE GUI but leave the cmake stuff and merge it in with the current build system, or find a different way to build on Windows. I'm not yet totally sold on cmake anyways, but this is something that we need to consider before we get too far down one branch.

Are you running 64-bit windows? That version 4.3.0 of GCC is pretty cutting edge.

 

[nmn]

MinGW supports Cmake, I used to do Qt work in it
I'm running SuSE Linux It says right in my gcc.

 

[Richard42]

MinGW supports Cmake, I used to do Qt work in it
I'm running SuSE Linux It says right in my gcc.

Uhhhh. my mind blocked that out. Let me back up then. Forgive my ignorance at never having used MinGW, but if the objective is to get the project to compile and run under windows, then I don't understand why you're starting on a Linux system. I would expect one to start on a Win32 system with MinGW installed.

 

[nmn]

Uhhhh. my mind blocked that out. Let me back up then. Forgive my ignorance at never having used MinGW, but if the objective is to get the project to compile and run under windows, then I don't understand why you're starting on a Linux system. I would expect one to start on a Win32 system with MinGW installed.

The obvious reason is for making builds. MinGW is also possible to do on Windows. MinGW is just easier to build on Linux because you can just build it off your existing tools instead of using an older version. (Technically you could just USE the older version, but we'd want optimizations and such from GCC 4)

In general, MinGW is the only toolkit on Windows that will do what we need that is not proprietary aside from Cygwin. It's what we'd want.

 

[Richard42]

The obvious reason is for making builds. MinGW is also possible to do on Windows. MinGW is just easier to build on Linux because you can just build it off your existing tools instead of using an older version. (Technically you could just USE the older version, but we'd want optimizations and such from GCC 4)

In general, MinGW is the only toolkit on Windows that will do what we need that is not proprietary aside from Cygwin. It's what we'd want.

Oh I see. It allows you to cross-compile Windows binaries from a Linux system. Good luck with that. Fucking visual studio .net 2005 can't even produce binaries that will run properly on an older system without jumping through all kinds of hoops. Probably MinGW will use older C runtime dlls and won't have those problems though.

 

[nmn]

Alright, I solved the Binutils issue by using a newer version (DAMN IT HOW STUPID CAN I GET) and the rest built smoothly.

 

[Günther1]

I always just used the precompiled mingw binaries from mingw's download page, or the debian packages if I need a crosscompiler. ;-)