Hi there,
On Sun, 2010-10-31 at 04:09 -0700, plino wrote:
> In the spirit of Open Source it doesn't make any sense that a closed
> source compiler is used.
I agree - at least; it should be possible to compile with MINGW, and
we're working on that. The big stumbling block, which is also a
performance nightmare and pile of cruft - is the '.rdb' file generation
- which demands that we dlopen a windows DLL to introspect the
components it supports, in order to write the component database for the
install set (services.rdb).
The good news is Stefan Bergman is re-writing this to use an XML
backend and we'll pick that up in the next version.
> This means that the script available to compile the Windows version,
> requires you to either use the limited free version from Microsoft or to buy
> a the full version from them...
Right - so at least Jesus has done the work to build with a non-price
Microsoft version - which is a big win,
> Currently MinGW-W64 is capable of compiling 32 and 64bit binaries... If the
> compiler is not up to the task maybe the developers could also contribute to
> that project...
Really - this discussion belongs on the developer list; and the person
who needs to be contributing is the one complaining :-) so - I greatly
welcome your contribution here: there is a lot to do, but it is quite
do-able, and I (and Fridrich + Jesus) would be happy to mentor anyone
wanting to work on that.
The hope is that with the new gcc Link Time Optimisation work, we may
even be able to get performance and size to the same region as the
Microsoft compilers do (which have traditionally produced smaller,
faster binaries).
HTH,
Michael.
--
[email protected] <><, Pseudo Engineer, itinerant idiot
--
Unsubscribe instructions: Email to [email protected]
Posting guidelines: http://netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html
Archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived ***
