From: Vincent R. <fo...@sm...> - 2010-02-03 09:57:40
|
On Tue, 02 Feb 2010 09:06:56 -0500, Charles Wilson <cwi...@us...> wrote: > Vincent Richomme wrote: >> On Sat, 30 Jan 2010 15:12:33 -0500, Charles Wilson >>> I'll keep plugging away at rebuilding the MSYS tools using the new >>> toolchain. Once I've rebuilt ALL of them, then I'll upload them all at >>> once. >> >> What is the status of your work ? > > Completed rebuilds (incl, in most cases and where applicable, updates to > most recent upstream version): > ============================ > lndir zlib bzip2 crypt gdbm > perl autoconf automake libtool > termcap libiconv(*) gettext(*) > xz regex minires > > New packages: > ============================ > dash rebase expat(**) libxml2(**) > > Todo: > ============================ > flex bison inetutils openssl > openssh libarchive sed m4 > mktemp file grep gzip gawk > texinfo less rxvt tar diffutils > patch findutils groff man cvs > vim gmp guile autogen popt > cygutils coreutils bash make > > (*) Now, built as DLLs > (**) Needed for future perl update > > Later: > update perl to newer version (5.8.8? 5.10.x?) > ditto autogen (5.9.8?) > ditto openssh (5.3p1-1) > > Note -- not even contemplating updating the following packages to newer > versions: > inetutils > coreutils > bash > > Like I said, I'm still plugging away. It'll be another week or two > before it's complete. Some might be wondering why I'm bothering, since > the current packages, built with the older msys gcc, work fine. Answer: > (1) if we're going to be able to use the new msys gcc in the future, > then all existing static libraries must be rebuilt since there were a > few ABI changes between gcc 2.95.3 and 3.4.x (2) work out the kinks in > the new msys gcc itself and related basic components, since this rebuild > project is the ultimate stress test. Already found a few, which have led > to the msys-1.0.13-2 kernel release and the -3 gcc release. (3) shared > DLL versions of libiconv and gettext mean that when other i18n-capable > binaries are rebuilt they will be much smaller (1.2MB -> 26kB, times 100 > or so executables...it's a significant savings). > Ok thanks. Another question: why are you using gcc 3.4.x and not gcc-4.4.x or even better gcc-4.5 ? Same question about binutils because next release(shouldn 't be too long now) add support for more PE-COFF features (last one is possibility to specify section alignement). |