Re: [wgcc-dev] Hey ho....

[Duft M. <Mar...@sa...>]

Hi!
=20
You really should _not_ install wgcc in /usr/local since then =
/usr/local/include would be in the include path, and confuse cl.exe, =
since those are _wrong_ headers.
=20
And you should realize, that wgcc really has nothing to do with posix =
builds or anything. wgcc is a litlle tool to produce _native_ =
executables, means there is no posix there, except when using the pxwc =
library. Then there is just a bunch of functions so that the posix names =
are available on native win32.
=20
in your .wgccrc you can specify the paths.c, paths.c++ and paths.linker. =
on my system this is (detected automatically for a visual studio =
install):
=20
paths.c =3D /wamas/libtool/wgcc/installed/include
paths.c +=3D /dev/fs/C/vs7/Vc7/include
paths.c +=3D /def/fs/C7vs7/Vc7/PlatformSDK/include
paths.c++ =3D /wamas/libtool/wgcc/installed/include
paths.c++ +=3D /dev/fs/C/vs7/Vc7/include
paths.c++ +=3D /def/fs/C7vs7/Vc7/PlatformSDK/include
paths.linker =3D /wamas/libtool/wgcc/installed/lib
paths.linker +=3D /dev/fs/C/vs7/Vc7/lib
paths.linker +=3D /def/fs/C7vs7/Vc7/PlatformSDK/lib
=20
you should set this to something similar. In my opinion there is really =
no need to port _anything_. the only thing that would be cool is a port =
of the GNU libc (not c++) to win32 (_not_ interix).
=20
wgcc really does something different than cc. look at wcc from =
interopsystems. this one should do something similar as wgcc. there is =
no sense in even _thinking_ about cc when speaking of wgcc.
=20
Cheers, Markus

________________________________

Von: Jerker B=E4ck [mailto:jer...@te...]
Gesendet: Sa 23.09.2006 16:06
An: Duft Markus
Betreff: RE: Hey ho....



> Your .wgccrc is corrupt i think
No, I just have not specified the location of Win32 headers and libs
I realized that after a while - anyway here's the files

In my case I would specify the headers and libs from the Windows 2003 =
SP1
platform SDK. The VS 2003 PlatformSDK folder is outdated and the one =
shipped
with VS 2005 is the same as the SDK - I deleted both folders (which is
recommended BTW).

My path includes a complete set of MS tools and I also specified the
C89_COMPILER and C89_LINKER macros used in the cc script. The advantage =
of
using tools from the Windows DDK is that the installation is designed to =
be
used standalone and have some extra goodies (i.e. prefast debug builds).

Struggling with wgcc I run into some problems with SUA MS C++ (again). =
Since
all libs are release builds in SUA (without any debugging info), it's =
very
difficult to build debug builds of the app in question (not to even =
mention
the infamous VSAddin posix debugger). The library is also incomplete
compared with the original in VS 2005. So this led me to several =
attempts to
do a basic port of the MS C++ library (version 7.1 most preferable). I'm
tempted to get on with it again.

Any thoughts about this?

________________________________

From: Duft Markus [mailto:Mar...@sa...]
Sent: Saturday, September 23, 2006 10:42 AM
To: Jerker B=E4ck; int...@li...
Subject: AW: Hey ho....