Hi Stephan, On Monday 27 of October 2008, Stephan Bergmann wrote:
> In such a case, the compiler's native > STL implementation is probably the better choice, as it is likely to be > easier to configure and more standards conforming. > > I am not sure whether the mingw build is to be considered a new > platform, or whether it should be kept compatible with OOo's existing > Windows platform (wntmsci10/11/12, using the Microsoft compiler). (I > assume the former, as I doubt that binaries built with mingw C++ are > ABI-compatible with binaries built with the Microsoft C++ compiler.) For the reason in the first paragraph, I proposed the change ;-) From what I know, MinGW's gcc is not binary compatible with MSVC (I have no direct source of information though, just things like http://osdir.com/ml/gnu.mingw.user/2002-07/msg00060.html, and http://www.mingw.org/phpwiki-1.3.14/index.php/MSVC-MinGW-DLL). If it is true, the extensions would have to be built for MinGW OOo anew - then I think using --without-stlport as the default for MinGW would be better if it saves some burden with STLport, and if it works ;-) Regards, Jan --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
