On 1/21/08, Michael Gerdau <email@example.com> wrote:
> Well, Michael, I still have some questions.
Well, Chen, let's see whether I can provide answers.
> In the last day, you refer me to two scripts.
> * First,
> * Second, may be this:
> http://www.mingw.org/MinGWiki/index.php/this%20shell-Script (it says you
> are the current maintainer of it.)
> I have a glance at these scripts, they're written in quite different
> flavor. Which one should I use, both are OK?
Reread what I wrote:
I repeatedly referred you to the first script. In one mail I also wrote
Finally there is an entry in the MinGWiki dealing with it, albeit
somewhat outdated. However the basic ideas are still valid.
The second script obviously comes from the Wiki.
Now comes the $10,000.00
Which one should you use ?
Are you able to answer it ?
[hint: read _carefully_]
> The second question:
> I tried x86-mingw32-build.sh-0.0-20061107-1.tar.bz2 , and feel I'd
> better try it sometime later, because I use gcc 4.2.1 source from
> Preview: gcc-4.2.1-mingw-src-2
> <showfiles.php?group_id=2435&package_id=241304&release_id=538041> Notes
> <shownotes.php?release_id=538041&group_id=2435> (2007-08-14 04:05) ).
> its name does not match the pattern gcc-core-X.Y.X-src.tar.gz, and
> more, it contains gcc & g++ sources tweaked an packed together, which
> makes the script not suitable on the fly -- I think.
Reread what I wrote. To speed up your searching, here it is again:
several postings, many of which might interest you, e.g.
Just recently there have been a couple of threads dealing with this very
topic (i.e. building xcompiler etc.).
Apparently you have not bothered to look at any of it.
Both these scripts (as all other scripts been adverticed by others in
this thread) do build binutils before gcc. Having used any of these
would have solved your original problem. Most of what you learned the
hard way you could have learned by looking at these scripts.
> If you know the difference between gcc-4.2.1-2-src.tar.gz
> [ gcc-core-4.2.1-src.gz , gcc-g++-4.2.1-src.gz ], and which one is more
> suitable to build a mingw-gcc, please tell me. Thank you.
The difference is twofold.
a) any package gcc-<someversion>.tar.gz is the whole distribution while
the packages gcc-<component>-someversion>.tar.gz only have the code
required for that component. All component packages together are the
same as the complete package.
[this is basic gcc packaging information available by trivial search as
well as easily derived by a little bit of thinking and possibly looking
into the archives]
b) the packages available at
gcc.gnu.org are the original packages as
released by the FSF. The packages on our site are the original gcc
packages with some mingw specific patches applied on top.
8AFAIK this also is easily available information thought currently
sitting in a train I can't verify that]
Anyway I assume you now are able to answer your above question which of
these packages is more suiteable to build a mingw-gcc.
[again a hint: Read carefully]
To sum it up:
Most of your problems and questions have been answered one or the other
way by several people repeatedly. You consistently chose to ignore
advice given to you. That's a perfectly valid decision you are entitled
The problems start creaping in when you fail because you ignored the given
advice and start asking already answered questions. Then you do wasting
others time by going the easy way of asking questions instead of doing
basic research for yourself.
Again that is your decision.
It consequently is my decision to ignore your future posts unless you
actually have done your homeworks.
Well, Michael, I think you're a responsible person, and I thank you for your spending time replying to me. But you understood me deeply, so I have to clarify it.
As many persons who wants to build gcc themselve, I do not want just a working gcc in front of me, I want to get to know how to build gcc step by step as well as whant's going on in there, therefore, an automated script that prepares everything for me is not what I want now.
After I start this mail thread, Brian and you answered me first, both suggesting that I should build binutils first. And I repied to Brian that I will now try building binutils. Then how can you say I "consistently chose to ignore advice given to me"?
As I pointed out in my first reply to Brian, I said I " just like to take an adventure to see what will stop me if binutils was built later than ``make all-gcc' ". Why I said so? Because I can hardly find information telling me explicitly for what reason binutils must be built before all-gcc". So, I'd like to take an adventure(old saying "Nothing ventured, nothing gained.", you know) to build gcc before binutils , see what error information will I get when the failure occurs, and curiously wish to find out whether that error info contains any hint telling the error is due to missing target binutils. Unfortunately, as I had discovered later, no such hint, but the weired "section attribute not allowed for '__JCR_LIST__'" ! Wouldn't it be better if the build process could fail at a more reasonable stage and with a more reasonalble error message?