Darn, seems like it'll be much harder than I expected. Since multiple toolchains are supported for macOS and Linux, I assumed a slight patch would help get it to work on Windows. Looking through the stuff in make though, it appears a lot of the build system implicitly expects the compiler for Windows to always be Visual C++, which doesn't really help that much (Though the fact that we can exclude many versions of gcc, such as Cygwin's and old MinGW binaries helps a lot). The build process for the newer Windows ports of gcc are surprisingly similar to Visual C++ though (Eg rc can be swapped out for windres) so this might hopefully be something I can try exploring in the future (Gonna look a bit harder at make and write what I can find back to this mailing list in the meantime). It'd be interesting if benchmarks of the JVM compiled with different compilers on Windows can be compared side by side on the off chance this becomes a reality though
best regards, Julian On Fri, Mar 11, 2022 at 9:16 PM Magnus Ihse Bursie < magnus.ihse.bur...@oracle.com> wrote: > On 2022-03-11 12:55, Julian Waters wrote: > > > Hi all, > > > > How feasible would it be/much effort would it require to support > compiling > > with alternate toolchains on Windows besides Visual C++ (like the Windows > > ports of clang and gcc) if we restrict the allowed toolchains to only > those > > that link against the ucrt? (Toolchains linking against the dated msvcrt > > would present too many issues to work with) > > That'd be a huge undertaking. And any such patch would only be accepted > into the code base if the organization behinded appeared trustworthy in > their long-term commitment to keeping it working. > > /Magnus > > >
