On Fri, 2008-10-03 at 18:14 +0200, Murray Cumming wrote: > On Fri, 2008-10-03 at 13:55 +0200, Armin Burgmeier wrote: > > On Thu, 2008-10-02 at 18:49 -0400, Philip Kovacs wrote: > > > On the "Building gtkmm on Windows" web page I note the statement: > > > > > > "We suggest that you use MSYS to build gtkmm on Windows." > > > > > > This statement can only be be interpreted as: > > > > This is meant as: "If you want to build gtkmm with MinGW, then we > > recommend using MSYS to do so", since it is in the "Using MinGW" > > section. I made it more clear on the Wiki page. > > > > > "We suggest that you build your project, gtkmm and another other C++ > > > libraries > > > you intend to build from source with MSYS." > > > > > > Building any C++ project component with MINGW/MSYS means a total > > > commitment > > > to that environment/build system for all C++ project components. C++ > > > projects > > > and the libraries that they use must be built with the same compiler, due > > > to > > > name mangling, exception handling, stack issues, etc. > > > > > > "The MSVC++ DLLs have been built with Visual C++ 2005." > > > > > > is fine, but better would be: > > > > > > "The MSVC++ DLLs have been built with Visual C++ 2005 and are linked to > > > the > > > MS C/C++ runtime DLLs: MSVCR80.DLL / MSVCP80.DLL." > > > > It's a Wiki. Feel free to improve things yourself. > > > > > In my case, my Windows system has a later runtime environment: > > > MSVCR90.DLL / > > > MSVCP90.DLL (MS Visual Studio 2008), so I have to recompile anyway. I > > > think > > > cautioning people to verify which MS C/C++ runtime they have: 70/80/90, > > > etc. > > > before using the binary installer would be a good thing. > > > > I don't have too much experience with different runtimes, but I > > succeeded in building a small example application with Visual Studio > > 2008 against the binaries of the installer, which have been built with > > Visual Studio 2005. Doesn't this work in general? > > > > I think the MSVCR80 runtime files are still shipped with Visual Studio > > 2008. > > > > > Anyway, I have built each of: gtkmm/glibmm/sigc++/cairomm sucessfully with > > > MS VC++ 2008. I just wish there were a way to automate the installation > > > of > > > the development files to a target path from that gtkmm source tree. > > > > If that's indeed a problem, then we probably need to ship separate files > > for both Visual Studio 2005 (linked against *80.DLL) and 2008 (linked > > against *90.DLL). > > That does sound necessary. People would otherwise sometimes be forced to > link to both, which is probably unpleasant. Can you take care of that, > please, Armin?
Yes. We will have to think of a naming convention for those binaries. gtkmm-2.4-vc9.dll? (in contrast to gtkmm-2.4.dll for VS 2005, which we might then rename to gtkmm-2.4-vc8.dll, possibly breaking compatibility) But I'm still not 100% convinced. Do other C++ projects that provide Windows binaries also ship different DLLs for each Visual Studio Version? > And please make sure that those improvements are in the wiki, if Philip > doesn't do that. Armin _______________________________________________ gtkmm-list mailing list gtkmm-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gtkmm-list