cc: [email protected] Subject: Re: [uwin-users] a wild guess on 'cc', 'pcc', MSVC, UNIXish OSes and Windows --------
> Hello All, > > as I have stated many times, 'pcc.c' is not in the source tarball - I'm still > waiting for a confirmation. I will have to check. If it is not there, it could be because it is in the uwin development package. I don't do the packaging anymore so I will have find out why. > > Now I think I understand the "whole" picture. > > 'cc' wrapper, according to my observation, doesn't work except maybe with > MSVC - I simply haven't tried it yet with MSVC. The cc wrapper is only supposed to wrap compilers running on Windows. It is not a wrapper for compilers on UNIX. > > OTOH, there is native 'cc' under Linux: > > ls -ltr `which cc` > lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 7 2008-10-08 02:25 /usr/bin/cc -> gcc-4.2 > . > > And that native 'cc' pretty much works with UWIN under Linux - quite a lot > of stuff can be built with it, though not everything, and the targets at > least in part fail due to reasons not related to compiler. That native cc only supports gcc, not MSVC and when I tried it it had a lot of problems. Also, each of the compilers on windows used different option specifications. We wanted a compiler interface that worked on all systems and could build dlls simply with gcc, msvc, or any native compiler. This way our make files do not depend on the compiler directly. If you look at the ast package you will see compiler independent Makefiles that work with gcc, Sun cc, Hp cc, IBM cc, MVS cc, and UWIN supported compilers as well as others. > > Since UWIN and its 'cc' doesn't work with non-MSVC compilers, had UWIN > 'cc' been built under Linux, it would have screwed up the rest of the > build - because it doesn't work. It used to work with 4 compilers on UWIN. It never worked or intended to work on Linux. > > So, it looks it's not in the source tarballs for this reason. No, this is not the release. The uwin source tarball contains windows specific source code. The ast source tarball is for all unix and unix-like systems. > > Now, if it's the truth, source tarballs should be organized differently - > there should be a separate one for UWIN 'cc'. Why? It only makes sense for compilation on UWIN. > > And this truth should be prominently written on the UWIN website - too > much effort has to be spent just to come to this truth, so why should > every newcomer spend this effort ? As far as I am aware, you are the only one to come to this conclusion. We have never made any other claim about the UWIN cc compiler wrapper. If others have had a similar proble, I would like to hear from you. > > Thanks, > Sergei. > David Korn [email protected] _______________________________________________ uwin-users mailing list [email protected] https://mailman.research.att.com/mailman/listinfo/uwin-users
