Re: [Cegcc-devel] Compiler macros again

[Pedro A. <ped...@po...>]

Danny Backx escreveu:
> On Thu, 2006-09-21 at 00:14 +0100, Pedro Alves wrote:
>   
>> Danny Backx escreveu:
>>     
>>> On Wed, 2006-09-20 at 21:44 +0100, Pedro Alves wrote:
>>>   
>>>       
>>>>> I thought those symbols were always supposed to be defined by our
>>>>> compilers ? The difference between them can be observed by looking
>>>>> whether __unix__ or WIN32 are defined.
>>>>>
>>>>> So should I fix the mingw32.h to define __CEGCC__ and __CEGCC32__ ?
>>>>>           
>
>   
>> __CEGCC__ identifies the cegcc toolchain, while __MINGW__
>> identifies MinGW toolchains. They are different toolchains,
>> why do you want to mix them up?
>>     
>
> Our naming is potentially confusing.
>
> People will wonder what __CEGCC__ covers :
> - our project ?
> - the DLL provided ?
>
> Similarly the targets are called
> - pe - but this compiler really stands for "something with a unix
>   environment"; Microsoft's definition of PE really matches the
>   executable file format, which both our targets produce
>   
I've told you quite recently, that arm-wince-pe is the wrong name
for this toolchain. It should be arm-wince-cegcc.

Quoting myself:

>Yes, more or less. newlib is a C runtime, which happens to include some 
>POSIX extensions, we use that, and add some more (newlib/sys/wince).
>(Note that arm-wince-pe is basically the wrong name for this toolchain,
>it should be arm-wince-cegcc. The triplet arm-wince-pe, would be more 
>correct for a bare bones toolchain, like, by using only MSFT's libs.
>But that is not so important right now.)

The arm-wince-pe target name is just historic baggage.
It was the original target name Nick Clifton chose when
he made the first (big) steps in making gnu tools produce
WinCE binaries. At the time he was using Microsoft's
SDK lib and headers, so the -pe does seem fit for that.
Once you start differentiating the toolchain, by adding to
the environment/runtime, you should also change to name.
That's what happened in i686-pc-cygwin or i686-pc-mingw32,
or the more recent x86_64-pc-mingw64, etc. It is possible
also to build for instance an i386-pc-pe binutils, but nobody
uses it.

> - mingw32 - but you asked me to add a comment in our docs to state
>   that we're not offering an official MinGW port
>
> Please understand that I'm not trying to be brutal, I'm just asking
> questions to improve our "product".
>
>   
But we have two "products".
The *cegcc project* has a *cegcc toolchain*, and an unofficial
mingw32 toolchain. It just so happens they they share common infrustructure,
namelly the w32api port for Windows CE.

Cheers,
Pedro Alves