Hi Keith and all,
On Sun, 27 Feb 2011, Keith Marshall wrote:
> On 27/02/11 21:25, Chris Wilson wrote:
>> I've been thinking about using MSYS, but my initial experiments told
>> me that it doesn't provide nearly as much drop-in compatibility for
>> configure scripts as Cygwin does;
> That's not been my experience. Any GCS conforming configure script
> should run equally well under MSYS and Cygwin sh.exe; perhaps if you
> need an esoteric tool, Cygwin is more likely to provide it.
The project I'm working on requires OpenSSL and PCRE, both of which have
their own non-standard configure mechanisms, and I seem to remember
having difficulty getting them to work with MSYS (it was a long time ago).
If someone knows that either of these works, please let me know (and if
possible, how to do it) :)
> I find MSYS to be slightly faster than Cygwin, but it's still slow,
> which is why I prefer to use a cross-compiler hosted on GNU/Linux; it's
> an order of magnitude faster.
I agree, but when it comes to testing, Wine doesn't cut it; and this
project has several configure tests that rely on being able to execute
programs, not just compile them, which also makes cross-compiling more
difficult. Finally there are no RPMs for MinGW packages for CentOS, which
is one of my main development platforms. (They now exist for Fedora 8,
which I guess might help if I had time to recompile gcc, g++, etc.)
>> Is there any point in trying to port the more common utilities away
>> from the MSYS DLL to native implementations? E.g. I can imagine that
>> using native bash, gcc, rm, etc. might be much faster. Does that make
>> sense? Would it be difficult? Perhaps the less commonly-used
>> utilities could remain under MSYS to ease the porting effort?
> Well, our GCC and binutils tool chain is already 100% native.
Does that mean that they avoid the startup overhead of loading
msys-1.0.dll and forking CPP? If so then perhaps I'm barking up the wrong
> Many of the other tools are already available, as native Win32
> applications, from the GnuWin32 project; I've tried some of them, but
> I've always had better success using the MSYS variants. You are welcome
> to try them; YMMV. One stumbling block: last time I looked, I don't
> think they offered a Unixy shell; rather a show stopper, if you want to
> run a Bourne shell configure script.
Yes, I gather that bash doesn't run natively, but zsh apparently does, and
it might be "close enough" (I've heard a lot of people recommending zsh).
As far as the other tools go, I suspect that they don't do path
translation in the same way as MSYS does, and this might cause problems
for configure scripts.
_____ __ _
\ __/ / ,__(_)_ | Chris Wilson <chris+sig@...> Cambs UK |
/ (_/ ,\/ _/ /_ \ | Security/C/C++/Java/Ruby/Perl/SQL Developer |
\__/_/_/_//_/___/ | We are GNU : free your mind & your software |