Re: [Mingw-cross-env-list] build tools installed in $(PREFIX)/$(TARGET)

[John W. Eaton]

On 02/09/2014 12:46 AM, Tony Theodore wrote:
> On 6 Feb 2014, at 14:28, John W. Eaton <address@hidden> wrote:
> > I guess I'm a bit confused about why they should be installed in 
> > $(PREFIX)/$(TARGET)/bin if users are not expected to add that directory to 
> > their PATH and Makefiles should be using names like $(TARGET)-gcc for cross 
> > compiler tools.
> >
> > What I'd like to be able to do is cross compile tools like gcc, bison, etc. and 
> > install those tools in $(PREFIX)/$(TARGET)/bin along with all the other 
> > packages that I'm cross compiling for Windows.  That seems to conflict with 
> > putting the cross compiler binaries themselves in $(PREFIX)/$(TARGET)/bin.
>
>
> Adding:
>
>          --exec-prefix='$(PREFIX)/$(BUILD)' \
>          --bindir='$(PREFIX)/bin’
>
> to binutils.mk seems to create a more logical layout, but I can’t achieve the 
> same for gcc (without digging too deeply into it’s configuration). A full mxe 
> install will also put other files in this location, some will be 
> arch-independent scripts, but some will be binaries that are harder to relocate 
> (pg_config from memory). The binaries intended to run on Windows can be 
> separated by their *.exe suffix, it’s not very clean, but may be sufficient.
>
> Is there some other layout that makes sense? MXE can almost bootstrap it's 
> requirements and logically should be able to also produce a cross-compiled 
> toolchain in a single tree. The last few commits[1] give us a lot more 
> flexibility with directory layout and could be used (or extended) to achieve 
> this.

I tried the attached change.  It seems to work, so I don't think the 
tools that are installed in $(PREFIX)/$(TARGET)/bin are actually needed 
by MXE.  Note that I did have to tell GCC where to look for AS, LD, and NM.

jwe

mxe-diffs
Description: Text document