[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: cross building 1.9.14 for mingw
From: |
Jan Nieuwenhuizen |
Subject: |
Re: cross building 1.9.14 for mingw |
Date: |
Mon, 31 Jan 2011 21:16:24 +0100 |
Ludovic Courtès schreef op za 29-01-2011 om 22:34 [+0100]:
Hi Ludovic,
> OK but all the modules listed after ‘accept’ above are needed too,
> right?
Yes, sure.
> Hmm could it be that there was a typo? Here running ‘git-version-gen’
> outside of a Git tree works fine:
>
> $ guile/build-aux/git-version-gen .tarball-version s/foo/bar/
> UNKNOWN
Yes, does it also work when you change configure.ac and autoreconf?
> Ouch. May I suggest reporting it to address@hidden :-) I think
> people there would be happy to provide an appropriate fix and we
> wouldn’t even have to worry. ;-)
Yes, hat would be nice.
> > --- a/libguile/bdw-gc.h
> > +++ b/libguile/bdw-gc.h
> > @@ -30,7 +30,9 @@
> > allocation. */
> >
> > # define GC_THREADS 1
> > +#ifndef __MINGW32__
> > # define GC_REDIRECT_TO_LOCAL 1
> > +#endif /* __MINGW32__ */
>
> Why?
I'm using gc-6.8 and cannot seem to build a version for Mingw that
includes GC_local_malloc -- that seems to be for linux pthreads only.
Removing this redirect to local, fixes these
.libs/libguile_2.0_la-alist.o:alist.c:(.text+0x6bf): undefined reference to
`_GC_local_malloc'
build errors.
> > - buf->st_mode = _S_IFSOCK | _S_IREAD | _S_IWRITE | _S_IEXEC;
> > + buf->st_mode = _S_IREAD | _S_IWRITE | _S_IEXEC;
>
> Why? Isn’t ‘_S_IFSOCK’ defined on all MinGW?
I don't have in it my mingw-runtime-3.14. If there's a newer version,
I've misses something and would like to hear it.
> > +#ifndef __MINGW32__
> > /* Make sure the `AI_*' flags can be stored as INUMs. */
> > verify (SCM_I_INUM (SCM_I_MAKINUM (AI_ALL)) == AI_ALL);
>
> Does MinGW lack getaddrinfo?
No, it lacks the AI_* definitions. I realise that you may not want
to include this just yet, although it "documents" my progress building
it for mingw.
> Gnulib’s ‘getaddrinfo’ module, which we use, is supposed to take care of
> this, i.e., it should fall back to ‘gethostbyname’ if needed.
Yes.
More bits in a new thread.
Thanks, greetings,
Jan.
--
Jan Nieuwenhuizen <address@hidden> | GNU LilyPond http://lilypond.org
Freelance IT http://JoyofSource.com | Avatar® http://AvatarAcademy.nl