GCC 3.1 / Ada / Cygwin / Win2k ?

GCC 3.1 / Ada / Cygwin / Win2k ?

[Wes Groleau]

Would like to hear from anyone who successfully installed
the whole combo of Cygwin 1.3.13 & GCC 3.1.1 (enable Ada,
C, C++) on Windows 2K

If no one, the closest configuration.

What is the minimum (if you know) set of Cygwin packages
needed to build GCC?  (Or is there one pre-built somewhere?)

The Cygwin installer doesn't seem to work very well.
Is there a trick for selecting/deselecting packages
that won't lock up the installer?

-- 
Wes Groleau
http://freepages.rootsweb.com/~wgroleau

Re: GCC 3.1 / Ada / Cygwin / Win2k ?

[Anisimkov]

"Wes Groleau" <wesgroleau@despammed.com> wrote in message
> Would like to hear from anyone who successfully installed
> the whole combo of Cygwin 1.3.13 & GCC 3.1.1 (enable Ada,
> C, C++) on Windows 2K


You should better use gcc-mingw on Win32 platform.
http://www.mingw.org

There is already version 3.2.

Re: GCC 3.1 / Ada / Cygwin / Win2k ?

[Ted Dennison]

"Anisimkov" <anisimkov@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<aoibfe$cq2$1@ns.omskelecom.ru>...
> "Wes Groleau" <wesgroleau@despammed.com> wrote in message
> > Would like to hear from anyone who successfully installed
> > the whole combo of Cygwin 1.3.13 & GCC 3.1.1 (enable Ada,
> > C, C++) on Windows 2K
> 
> 
> You should better use gcc-mingw on Win32 platform.
> http://www.mingw.org
> 
> There is already version 3.2.

As far as I know, no one has ever built Gnat with Cygwin. Just
building the compiler from sources the normal way is tough enough; I'd
suggest you try not to blaze any new trails. :-)

You probably wouldn't want to anyway, as any program so produced would
have to be GPL'ed (unless you've paid RedHat for a GPL-free runtime).

Re: GCC 3.1 / Ada / Cygwin / Win2k ?

[Jeffrey Creem]

Actually I think the first (and only the first) release of GNAT for NT used
cygwin...

"Ted Dennison" <dennison@telepath.com> wrote in message

> As far as I know, no one has ever built Gnat with Cygwin. Just
> building the compiler from sources the normal way is tough enough; I'd
> suggest you try not to blaze any new trails. :-)
>
> You probably wouldn't want to anyway, as any program so produced would
> have to be GPL'ed (unless you've paid RedHat for a GPL-free runtime).

Re: GCC 3.1 / Ada / Cygwin / Win2k ?

[Ze Administrator]

> As far as I know, no one has ever built Gnat with Cygwin. Just
> building the compiler from sources the normal way is tough enough; I'd
> suggest you try not to blaze any new trails. :-)

Not blazing new trails is my goal.  All the successfully
tested Windoze entries on the GCC web page were built
with CygWin and some of them included Ada.

However, they were all CygWin 1.10 or 1.11 and the CygWin
web site pushes 3.13

Re: GCC 3.1 / Ada / Cygwin / Win2k ?

[Pascal Obry]

Ze Administrator <groleaufamily@despammed.com> writes:

> Not blazing new trails is my goal.  All the successfully
> tested Windoze entries on the GCC web page were built
> with CygWin and some of them included Ada.

I think there is confusion here. It uses Cygwin as a tool set to build
GCC/GNAT but is not targetted to Cygwin. The GNAT runtime is using native
(MingW-based) libraries.

Pascal.

-- 

--|------------------------------------------------------
--| Pascal Obry                           Team-Ada Member
--| 45, rue Gabriel Peri - 78114 Magny Les Hameaux FRANCE
--|------------------------------------------------------
--|         http://perso.wanadoo.fr/pascal.obry
--| "The best way to travel is by means of imagination"
--|
--| gpg --keyserver wwwkeys.pgp.net --recv-key C1082595

Re: GCC 3.1 / Ada / Cygwin / Win2k ?

[Wes Groleau]

Pascal Obry wrote:
> I think there is confusion here. It uses Cygwin as a tool set to build
> GCC/GNAT but is not targetted to Cygwin. The GNAT runtime is using native
> (MingW-based) libraries.

Ah, soo desu ka.  What I have to do is quickly* provide a reliable*,
repeatable* way to install a reasonably robust* Ada/C environment.

My personal preference is "latest and greatest" but for my
"customers" I must provide tools that "get the job done"

* quickly    => "What do you mean testing?  It's been several
                  hours since we asked for that!"
* repeatable => No surprises when someone puts it on WinNT
                 and I only tested on Win2K
* reliable   => They can only screw it up by intentionally
                 not following my instructions
* robust     => Something that will not inspire misdirected
                 blame against Ada

The ideal would be one already built.  That gives me
time to experiment with building the next one while
they get started using this one.

Re: GCC 3.1 / Ada / Cygwin / Win2k ?

[Chad R. Meiners]

"Wes Groleau" <wesgroleau@despammed.com> wrote in message
news:bwAr9.1853$c6.2462@bos-service2.ext.raytheon.com...
> My personal preference is "latest and greatest" but for my
> "customers" I must provide tools that "get the job done"
>
> * quickly    => "What do you mean testing?  It's been several
>                   hours since we asked for that!"
> * repeatable => No surprises when someone puts it on WinNT
>                  and I only tested on Win2K
> * reliable   => They can only screw it up by intentionally
>                  not following my instructions
> * robust     => Something that will not inspire misdirected
>                  blame against Ada
>
> The ideal would be one already built.  That gives me
> time to experiment with building the next one while
> they get started using this one.

Why don't you use the pre-built version at
ftp://cs.nyu.edu/pub/gnat/3.14p/winnt/
Is there some reason why the executables must be built to use the cygwin
dll?

Re: GCC 3.1 / Ada / Cygwin / Win2k ?

[Wes Groleau]

> Why don't you use the pre-built version at
> ftp://cs.nyu.edu/pub/gnat/3.14p/winnt/

Because that is not an integrated GCC suite.

> Is there some reason why the executables must be built to use the cygwin
> dll?

No.  I just have to find or build one that works.
On the GCC web pages all the ones that have passed tests
(and all the ones that haven't) say they were built with CygWin.

Re: GCC 3.1 / Ada / Cygwin / Win2k ?

[Britt Snodgrass]

Wes Groleau <wesgroleau@despammed.com> wrote in message news:<4xCr9.1511$Bd4.11686@dfw-service2.ext.raytheon.com>...
> > Why don't you use the pre-built version at
> > ftp://cs.nyu.edu/pub/gnat/3.14p/winnt/
> 
> Because that is not an integrated GCC suite.
> 
> > Is there some reason why the executables must be built to use the cygwin
> > dll?
> 
> No.  I just have to find or build one that works.
> On the GCC web pages all the ones that have passed tests
> (and all the ones that haven't) say they were built with CygWin.

Have you seen this one?

http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2002-05/msg02644.html

Re: GCC 3.1 / Ada / Cygwin / Win2k ?

[Wes Groleau]

>>No.  I just have to find or build one that works.
>>On the GCC web pages all the ones that have passed tests
>>(and all the ones that haven't) say they were built with CygWin.
> 
> Have you seen this one?
> 
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2002-05/msg02644.html

Yes.  Built with CygWin like all the rest of them.

I guess I should have been more detailed in my original request.
What I am looking for (and I may need to write one of the testers
of messages like that) is info on _which_ CygWin packages are
mandatory.  Obviously I don't need Apache to build GCC, but
others are not so obvious.  Took four hours to install most
of CygWin on a corporate line (and their "simple" installer
is buggy).  I say most, because I ran out of disk and crashed
the installer.  Trying to cannibalize unused disk space from
the Linux partition, I instead trashed both Linux and Windows!

Re: GCC 3.1 / Ada / Cygwin / Win2k ?

[Preben Randhol]

Wes Groleau wrote:
> the installer.  Trying to cannibalize unused disk space from
> the Linux partition, I instead trashed both Linux and Windows!

How did you manage that?

-- 
Ada95 is good for you.
http://libre.act-europe.fr/Software_Matters/02-C_pitfalls.pdf

Re: GCC 3.1 / Ada / Cygwin / Win2k ?

[Wes Groleau]

>>the installer.  Trying to cannibalize unused disk space from
>>the Linux partition, I instead trashed both Linux and Windows!
> 
> How did you manage that?

Not sure.  I booted up Linux (Mandrake) and verified that it
filled less than two Gigabytes of a twelve GB partition.

So I put the install CD in, and reinstalled.  When I got
to that point,  I selected the second 12 GB partition and
split it into nine and three.  Formatted the nine to NTFS
and the three to standard Unix.  Installed Linux, and tried
to reboot.  Goes through about a screen and a half of
startup messages and then hangs.  Vulcan nerve pinch and
power button disabled--have to unplug.

Selected NT from LILO boot menu.  Screen says "Loading NT..."
and nothing else for many minutes.  Vulcan nerve pinch and
power button disabled again.

Windows CD can boot and can see all partitions but can't
repair.  Linux CD "rescue" function can't fix either.

Corp. IT came in and re-partitioned and re-imaged the whole drive.
Not in a hurry to try re-installing Linux now!  :-)

Re: GCC 3.1 / Ada / Cygwin / Win2k ?

[Preben Randhol]

Wes Groleau wrote:
> Not sure.  I booted up Linux (Mandrake) and verified that it
> filled less than two Gigabytes of a twelve GB partition.
> 
> So I put the install CD in, and reinstalled.  When I got
> to that point,  I selected the second 12 GB partition and
> split it into nine and three.  Formatted the nine to NTFS
> and the three to standard Unix.  Installed Linux, and tried
> to reboot.  Goes through about a screen and a half of
> startup messages and then hangs.  Vulcan nerve pinch and
> power button disabled--have to unplug.

You mean you ran fdisk or similar on a mounted disc and repartitioned
it?

Not sure I understand the setup. Did you have the linux partition before
the NT partition or after? I think windows will choke if you suddenly
create a partition before what is usually C: as this will then become D:


> Selected NT from LILO boot menu.  Screen says "Loading NT..."
> and nothing else for many minutes.  Vulcan nerve pinch and
> power button disabled again.

Did you run lilo after installing Linux.

> Windows CD can boot and can see all partitions but can't
> repair.  Linux CD "rescue" function can't fix either.
> 
> Corp. IT came in and re-partitioned and re-imaged the whole drive.
> Not in a hurry to try re-installing Linux now!  :-)

Hmm this sounds very odd. I have never experienced anything like it, but
I'm not clear on how your disc looked like before you tried. But if you
used some program like partition magic or similar to spilt a partition
into two then this is not a safe way.

Preben Randhol
-- 
This is Ada land. On quiet nights you can hear C programmers debug.

Re: GCC 3.1 / Ada / Cygwin / Win2k ?

[Wes Groleau]

Preben Randhol wrote:
> Wes Groleau wrote:
> 
>>Not sure.  I booted up Linux (Mandrake) and verified that it
>>filled less than two Gigabytes of a twelve GB partition.
>>
>>So I put the install CD in, and reinstalled.  When I got
>>to that point,  I selected the second 12 GB partition and
>>split it into nine and three.  Formatted the nine to NTFS
>>and the three to standard Unix.  Installed Linux, and tried
>>to reboot.  Goes through about a screen and a half of
>>startup messages and then hangs.  Vulcan nerve pinch and
>>power button disabled--have to unplug.
> 
> 
> You mean you ran fdisk or similar on a mounted disc and repartitioned
> it?

No.  I booted the Linux Install CD and tried to use that to repartition
the _second_ partition (which Win2K calls D: but is unable to read).
This partition had Linux on it at the time, but it was at the beginning
of a twelve Gig partition, leaving eleven Gig empty.   I tried to split it
into 9 NTFS and 3 Linux.  This appeared to succeed, and installing Linux
into the three appeared to succeed.  Obviously, installing Linux the
first time in D: (which included splitting the 15 Gig D: into twelve and
three and reformatting to UFS and swap) did succeed the first time.

> Not sure I understand the setup. Did you have the linux partition before
> the NT partition or after? I think windows will choke if you suddenly
> create a partition before what is usually C: as this will then become D:

After.  See above.

>>Selected NT from LILO boot menu.  Screen says "Loading NT..."
>>and nothing else for many minutes.  Vulcan nerve pinch and
>>power button disabled again.
> 
> Did you run lilo after installing Linux.

LILO runs at startup automatically.  That's where I select
which OS to boot.

> Hmm this sounds very odd. I have never experienced anything like it, but
> I'm not clear on how your disc looked like before you tried. But if you
> used some program like partition magic or similar to spilt a partition
> into two then this is not a safe way.

The partitioning/formatting tool is a built-in part of the Linux install
sequence.  It worked the first time, trashed the disk this time.  I've got 
Windows back now, but since it is 50% of my job and I have separate Solaris 
machines for the other 50%, I'm reluctant to try again.  :-)

I've forgotten how we got to this from a subject line of
    Re: GCC 3.1 / Ada / Cygwin / Win2k ?

:-)

Re: GCC 3.1 / Ada / Cygwin / Win2k ?

[Preben Randhol]

Wes Groleau wrote:
> No.  I booted the Linux Install CD and tried to use that to repartition
> the _second_ partition (which Win2K calls D: but is unable to read).
> This partition had Linux on it at the time, but it was at the beginning
> of a twelve Gig partition, leaving eleven Gig empty.   I tried to split it
> into 9 NTFS and 3 Linux.  This appeared to succeed, and installing Linux
> into the three appeared to succeed.  Obviously, installing Linux the
> first time in D: (which included splitting the 15 Gig D: into twelve and
> three and reformatting to UFS and swap) did succeed the first time.

UFS ? Why did you choose that? I would use ext2 or ext3?

> I've forgotten how we got to this from a subject line of
>     Re: GCC 3.1 / Ada / Cygwin / Win2k ?
> 
>:-)

dunno :-) 

-- 
Preben Randhol  --------------------  http://www.pvv.org/~randhol
�.., chaos is found in greatest abundance wherever order is being
sought. It always defeats order, because it is better organized.�
                            -- Interesting Times, Terry Pratchett

Re: GCC 3.1 / Ada / Cygwin / Win2k ?

[Wes Groleau]

> UFS ? Why did you choose that? I would use ext2 or ext3?

I don't know what those are.  And I don't think they called
it UFS--it was just the "normal" Unix file system type.

Re: GCC 3.1 / Ada / Cygwin / Win2k ?

[Preben Randhol]

Wes Groleau wrote:
> 
>> UFS ? Why did you choose that? I would use ext2 or ext3?
> 
> I don't know what those are.  And I don't think they called
> it UFS--it was just the "normal" Unix file system type.

Ok you should use ext2 or ext3 (or perhaps ReiserFS, depending on your
needs). 

-- 
Preben Randhol  --------------------  http://www.pvv.org/~randhol
�.., chaos is found in greatest abundance wherever order is being
sought. It always defeats order, because it is better organized.�
                            -- Interesting Times, Terry Pratchett

Re: GCC 3.1 / Ada / Cygwin / Win2k ?

[sk]

Hi,
Wes Groleau <wesgroleau@despammed.com>
> <snip>

I keep "Toms Root/Boot" disks around for such nastiness.

It is a complete bootable Linux floppy which has enough
tools to look at partitions etc.

Sorry, don't have an exact URL, but a google search
should quickly find it for you.

-- 
-------------------------------------
-- Merge vertically for real address
-------------------------------------
s n p @ t . o
 k i e k c c m
-------------------------------------

Re: GCC 3.1 / Ada / Cygwin / Win2k ?

[Georg Bauhaus]

Wes Groleau <wesgroleau@despammed.com> wrote:
: 
: Not sure.  I booted up Linux (Mandrake) and verified that it
: filled less than two Gigabytes of a twelve GB partition.

A collegue told me that the latest Mandrake will happily
deal with NTFS partitions, by automatically using them --
for its own file space. Maybe that is a hint as to the direction
the latest Mandrake has taken...?

-- georg
Linux strudel 2.4.18-xfs #3 Wed Aug 21 20:30:45 CEST 2002
i686 unknown unknown GNU/Linux

Re: GCC 3.1 / Ada / Cygwin / Win2k ?

[Wes Groleau]

> A collegue told me that the latest Mandrake will happily
> deal with NTFS partitions, by automatically using them --
> for its own file space. Maybe that is a hint as to the direction
> the latest Mandrake has taken...?

Ooh!  I'll look into that.  But I suspect he means it
can merely read and write files in them, but not boot
from them.  That was the case with the Mandrake 8.1
I had installed before.

Re: GCC 3.1 / Ada / Cygwin / Win2k ?

[Florian Weimer]

Georg Bauhaus <sb463ba@l1-hrz.uni-duisburg.de> writes:

> A collegue told me that the latest Mandrake will happily
> deal with NTFS partitions, by automatically using them --
> for its own file space. Maybe that is a hint as to the direction
> the latest Mandrake has taken...?

The NTFS format is proprietary.  You can't do much damage by reading
them, but writing to them is gambling with your data. :-(

Re: GCC 3.1 / Ada / Cygwin / Win2k ?

[Georg Bauhaus]

Florian Weimer <fw@deneb.enyo.de> wrote:
: 
: The NTFS format is proprietary.  You can't do much damage by reading
: them, but writing to them is gambling with your data. :-(

To be precise, I was told that Mandrake formats the partitions,
unless you take care...

Re: GCC 3.1 / Ada / Cygwin / Win2k ?

[Stephen Leake]

Wes Groleau <wesgroleau@despammed.com> writes:

> > Why don't you use the pre-built version at
> > ftp://cs.nyu.edu/pub/gnat/3.14p/winnt/
> 
> Because that is not an integrated GCC suite.

What do you mean by "integrated"? 

You asked for Ada and C; 3.14p gives you that, plus 'make'.

If you want 'bash' in addition, get it from Cygwin, but put GNAT first
in your path.

That's what I do for my day-to-day work.

-- 
-- Stephe

Re: GCC 3.1 / Ada / Cygwin / Win2k ?

[Wes Groleau]

Stephen Leake wrote:
> What do you mean by "integrated"? 
> 
> You asked for Ada and C; 3.14p gives you that, plus 'make'.

I apologize.  I did say Ada/C later in the thread.
Originally, though, I mentioned GCC 3.1 with Ada, C, and C++.

Now that 3.2 is "released," I'm going for that instead.

What I am trying to do is provide approximately the same thing
on Windows that they have on Sun.  (Or will have--trying to
put it on the Sun also)

P.S. I got your two files at home but haven't had time to
deal with them.  Can you forward the headers from that
bounced message there, too?  I was able to forward the
files here, and I didn't see anything about the bounce
in my logs.

Re: GCC 3.1 / Ada / Cygwin / Win2k ?

[Rolf Ebert]

Wes Groleau <wesgroleau@despammed.com> wrote in message news:<3DAC4528.81F57BBD@despammed.com>...
> Would like to hear from anyone who successfully installed
> the whole combo of Cygwin 1.3.13 & GCC 3.1.1 (enable Ada,
> C, C++) on Windows 2K
> 

I haven't installed it successfully yet, but I think I am quite close.
 There are open issues, though.  Perhaps someone can provide some
hints.

I am using the current CVS head (from 2002-10-15), which will
eventually become gcc-3.3.  The gnat1 and gnatbind binaries seem to
work correctly and "make bootstrap" runs flawlessly.

1) I get an ICE when compiling g-spipat.adb.  My workaround was to
completely remove the XMatch implementation and make it call XMatchD.

2) The pragma Import in a-except was replaced from
_Unwind_RaiseException to
_Unwind_SjLj_RaiseException.  I am not sure that this is the correct
solution; does the EH really use setjump/longjump on cygwin?

3) I get an unresolved symbol '_nanosleep' from
system__os_primitives__timed_delay.  No idea how to solve this one.

    Rolf

Re: GCC 3.1 / Ada / Cygwin / Win2k ?

[nicolas]

[-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --]
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1993 bytes --]

I think it is better to use only Mingw and not mix things with cygwin
I build 3.3 with Mingw tools available on
http://sourceforge.net/project/mingw   (I use msys 1.07)

some patches for gcc sources are necessary for mingw, especially in
gcc/gcc/ada
I can send you my diff if you are interested
I just have the bare minimum diff to get a usable Gnat 3.3

Mingw folks use more patches
their patches have been ready for monthes now, if not years, but nobody
seems willing to allow them to be commited in the main tree ...
The first reason is that very few people submit patches for Mingw
The other is a kind of ABM (anything but MS) attitude ...

I have your ICE when compiling g-spipat.adb, I just recompile this file
in -O1 which works fine, and make gnatlib_and_tools again


"Rolf Ebert" <rolf.ebert@gmx.net> a �crit dans le message de news:
d2b11234.0210162346.2b3b1a31@posting.google.com...
> Wes Groleau <wesgroleau@despammed.com> wrote in message
news:<3DAC4528.81F57BBD@despammed.com>...
> > Would like to hear from anyone who successfully installed
> > the whole combo of Cygwin 1.3.13 & GCC 3.1.1 (enable Ada,
> > C, C++) on Windows 2K
> >
>
> I haven't installed it successfully yet, but I think I am quite close.
>  There are open issues, though.  Perhaps someone can provide some
> hints.
>
> I am using the current CVS head (from 2002-10-15), which will
> eventually become gcc-3.3.  The gnat1 and gnatbind binaries seem to
> work correctly and "make bootstrap" runs flawlessly.
>
> 1) I get an ICE when compiling g-spipat.adb.  My workaround was to
> completely remove the XMatch implementation and make it call XMatchD.
>
> 2) The pragma Import in a-except was replaced from
> _Unwind_RaiseException to
> _Unwind_SjLj_RaiseException.  I am not sure that this is the correct
> solution; does the EH really use setjump/longjump on cygwin?
>
> 3) I get an unresolved symbol '_nanosleep' from
> system__os_primitives__timed_delay.  No idea how to solve this one.
>
>     Rolf

Re: GCC 3.1 / Ada / Cygwin / Win2k ?

[Wes Groleau]

Wes Groleau wrote:
> Would like to hear from anyone who successfully installed
> the whole combo of Cygwin 1.3.13 & GCC 3.1.1 (enable Ada,
> C, C++) on Windows 2K

Well, not getting anywhere with that, I decided to
"practice" by installing it on an easily-rebuilt
Solaris box.  The installation documents are a bit
confusing at one point.  It seems to say you cannot
build with Ada unless you already have an older GNAT.
But it doesn't give much clues on setting of variables
or options to use the older GNAT.

And then it seems to say you CAN install GNAT without
an older one, IF you can figure out a lot of cryptic
configuration variances.

> The Cygwin installer doesn't seem to work very well.
> Is there a trick for selecting/deselecting packages
> that won't lock up the installer?

Still interested if anyone can answer this--and if
anyone can list CygWin parts that are definitely NOT
needed to install or run GCC/GNAT.