These can be moved to the main page or elsewhere only after they are answered.
- How do I Add definitions for exports missing from MinGW??
- How do I Compile Native Mingw Utils?
- How can I cross-compile with autotools, using mingw32?
How can I link dynamically against libstdc++? (or why is there no shared version of libstdc++ for mingw?)
Do I need g++ to compile .c code written in the Windows style of declare-where-initialized?
- Please delete the following two where-is-the-exe questions, if you like the resolution at RealDumbQuickstart. Just now, there I wrote:
... you can just fetch just a MinGW exe and an MSys exe, run those, edit your PATH, and go, ... if you're only trying to add gcc and g++ and a few Unix tools like grep and vi to your Windows Cmd.exe shell.
How do I find an .exe to download & run that adds gcc to Windows Cmd.exe?
Are we no longer giving away an .exe that adds gcc to Windows Cmd.exe?
Here's an installer that's only a couple months old as this is written in 2005-12.
Here's the most recent monolithic installer that bundles everything together in one package so that it doesn't require an internet connection. But it's an older version of the tools.
The most flexible way to install is to download exactly the components you need and extract them yourself.
** I ask mostly because we just lost a design win: the last friend I invited to use gcc instead chose the gratis msdn.microsoft.com/visualc, because that .exe appears more supported, also redistributable by CD-R without Internet.
"More supported"? That page poses the question Is there any technical support available for the Visual C++ Toolkit? and answers No.
"Redistributable?" That page links to an EULA whose item 11 says you can give it to someone else only if you don't keep any copy yourself; but only the person who originally downloaded it seems to have that right.
Thanks for helping.
Let's split this thread into two parts: first the neutral reality, second the arguable appearance.
I now think the reality is:
a) The MinGW.org Download page tells us to distinguish Candidate, Current, Previous, Proposed, & Snapshot releases.
b) The MinGW.org Download page tells us there is no Candidate or Current monolithic installer for MinGW.
c) The MinGW-4.1.0.exe (latest Previous) will not construct a monolithic installer.
d) The MinGW-5.0.0.exe (Proposed) will construct a Current monolithic installer in a local folder, if you find the place you can ask to 'Download only' rather than 'Download as needed and install'.
Is that right? Are those facts? Today is 2005-12-20.
Notice (d) qualifies (b). There actually is a Current MinGW monolithic installer for gcc and g++. You just can't click thru an A HREF tag in the Html of MinGW.org to fetch it.
In this context, we can immediately see how we lost that sale I mentioned.
Facts (b) and (c), taken together or in isolation, give the false impression that we no longer intend to offer the free service of a monolithic installer for gcc and g++.
Indeed, further study of my records here show that I had previously discovered fact (d). We just keep that fact so well buried on this site that I forgot it.
I remember now, when working for myself, I had felt free to experiment with the Proposed release. Trying to make things easy for a hesitant new friend, I then pointed my friend to the Current release. That was my error. Here now, only the bleeding edge works for my friend, who wants a monolithic installer.
msdn.microsoft.com, by contrast, offers only the monolithic installer. No wiki support. No free source. Etc. They offer only the first thing that a certain population of people want - the monolithic installer of gcc and g++.
We're not making it easy for that population to connect with us.
Do we care?
If no, then thanks again for teaching just me what went wrong.
If yes, then what can we fix at MinGW.org proper, or in this Wiki, to explain rapidly & clearly that actually we do mean to offer a monolithic installer for gcc and g++, we just don't mean to package it for you and put it on the web behind an A HREF tag in the Html of MinGW.org?
Re the EULA, I think only people like us read the EULAs. So far as I know, my friend will redistribute, person-to-person, anything that isn't copy-protected. I kind of appreciate you reminding me of yet another reason why always I prefer gcc and g++ ... except that you do thus divide me from my friend.
Does this point merit appearing on a permanent page of this Wiki?
We could cite reasons why people should prefer our monolithic installer, rather than theirs - if we care?
Intruding in the conversation here:
People who want a simple C or C++ installer on Windows usually also want an IDE to go with it. The following IDEs all install recent MinGW C and C++ on Win32 (and sometimes other platforms) as part of a simple installation (there are others):