On 6/13/07, Danny Backx wrote: > > You've forgotten about this? > > Blush :-) > > Yes I did forget. >
:-) > I really stumbled across this when I was trying to write the docs/ pages > that spell out the difference between cegcc and mingw32ce. > > I'll write that the mingw32ce will get C++ DLL support shortly, unless > you think that's a bad idea. Is it ? > I'd prefer that we state that we can have libstdc++ as a dll now, but we don't by default. If people want it, they can generate it using that script. > I did read the remark about problems in it, but I didn't look much > deeper. If these are for real, we should probably mention that and tell > people to avoid the DLL in those cases. > Oh, they are real. > Or is this the wrong approach ? > Believe it or not, I don't know the best approach :) Danny Smith is making progress on this on the MinGW/gcc side. I would prefer to do what they do on MinGW land. I think he just released a gcc-4.2 based compiler for MinGW. I'll have to take a look at their local patches. Maybe the problems are fixed some other way other than always using libstdc++ and libgcc as dlls. > > I'll go rename script.sh to build-mingw32ce-dlls.sh to make it more > > visible. > Done. > In the above, I am assuming that I just edit the docs and then create a > 0.50 release, and that we only do changes like those (using this script > from src/build-mingw32ce.sh) after that. > My English parser didn't quite grasp this last sentence. :) If you are talking about the prefix thing for dlls, absolutely. Cheers, Pedro Alves ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by DB2 Express Download DB2 Express C - the FREE version of DB2 express and take control of your XML. No limits. Just data. Click to get it now. http://sourceforge.net/powerbar/db2/ _______________________________________________ Cegcc-devel mailing list Cegcc-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/cegcc-devel
