Re: [patch #6448] [MSVC 7/7] Add MSVC Support

[Peter Rosin]

I Forgot to answer some things...

Markus Duft skrev:
> > > > I find it strange that you tie $host matching *winnt* to
> > > > Parity/MSVC. That seems to be different from the intentions of
> > > > $host ($host is to me a system type, not a toolchain). I would
> > > > argue that for Parity, $build should be *-interix* (since
> > > > you are using Interix to drive the scripts, IIUC), and $host
> > > > should be *-mingw*. I.e. what you are really doing is something
> > > > that is in fact cross-compilation (with the quirk that you
> > > > happen to be able to run the resulting binaries of course).
> > > > But - and that's a big but - I'm in no way an expert on these
> > > > issues. And I haven't read up on what Parity is really doing,
> > > > so if the dlls etc that pop out are not usable by anything but
> > > > Parity it might be a totally different matter.
> > > We have spent many hours here playing with "cross" compiling (which
> > it isn't
> > > since we can execute the result, etc.), and never where too
> > successful. The
> > > best results where when using the same host triplet for
> > build/host/target...
> > > mingw would be totally wrong IMHO. Parity just uses cl.exe and co. as
> > > backend, pretty much like your patches do directly I guess. Which
> > host are
> > > you using.

My patches use the same host/build as MinGW when using MSYS, on the
grounds that the output from the MinGW tools and MSVC are compatible
(so same $host) and that MSYS is MSYS (same $build). That's also
how cccl has it (at least I think so...)

> > >            The winnt was just the best that came to our ming, since
> > the
> > > result is plain win32 binaries.

"winnt" is not the only kind of output from MSVC. So, why is winnt
better than win9x/winxp/win2k3 or whatever? And other tools also
target winnt. To sum it up, I think winnt is both too narrow and
too broad to be used as $host. Why not just parity?

If you want to have a common name, mingw is it, that's what's used
to denote the win32 environment w/o compatibility layers. If you
want to go your own way, winnt is too generic.

That's just my view of things of course, but I have previously
been proven to have a distorted view. So, use the salt shaker
liberaly...

> > >                                 So really the host could be *-
> > interix* and
> > > target of parity is *-winnt*.

Are interix binaries not in the posix subsystem? Or did you mean
*-interix* as $build and *-winnt* as $host?

Cheers,
Peter