Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
windows-gnu
: Adhere to MinGW convention for build outputs #22415base: master
Are you sure you want to change the base?
windows-gnu
: Adhere to MinGW convention for build outputs #22415Changes from all commits
9dd5357
d7298e3
8e2c06f
f4f6399
552fc98
67afb86
eef344f
a49834a
e69c4ad
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
There are no files selected for viewing
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This change -- DWARF by default (i.e. embedded into the binary; no PDB) for MinGW -- is probably the only controversial change in this PR. I don't personally have a problem with it since you can still opt into getting a PDB, but we should probably think carefully about this change nonetheless.
cc @squeek502 @andrewrk for thoughts, maybe others?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I don't feel like I know enough about why MinGW made this choice to give any useful feedback here.
I have a more general question, though (and this is also coming from ignorance, this is not necessarily intended as a criticism of these changes): is the stuff in this PR related to 'targeting the MinGW ABI' or is it more related to 'emulating the MinGW toolchain'? If it's the latter, is that something that Zig-the-compiler is/should be interested in? Would it make any sense to limit any 'emulating the MinGW toolchain' to
zig cc
, specifically?There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Native debuggers on Windows all expect PDBs, I think this change would hurt debuggability there - it would mean users would have to always specify a non-default option to use the default platform debuggers.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
An interesting data point for this discussion: msys2/MINGW-packages#5646
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This is also mentioned in #20039:
I'm not sure there's a default that's "good" here, and
gnu
being the default ABI for Windows in Zig makes the default matter.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
It's more about the latter. The goal of this PR is to improve compatibility.