This sounds like a sane approach. My own 2c is that your failure to load represents a failure to correctly package the .manifest data of the individual modules; perhaps this is due to the individual modules requiring an entry for php5ts.dll? Without digging deeper, it is probably most sane to ship vc 6 (or vc 7.1) binaries for now.
But I'd strongly encourage research into vc 8, not for binary distribution, but because the MS Visual Studio 2005 Express Edition (available free) is your end users' most approachable platform for exploring and compiling the sources, without the cost of other VC compilers and without the stress of fighting with the hassles of the other open compiler alternatives. Ilia Alshanetsky wrote: > Edin, > > Thanks for the detailed analysis and spending time analyzing the issue. > Based on what you've said I think our best option is to go back to VC++ > 6.0 for this release, we are too far along in the release cycle to > experiment with things. Perhaps for the next release we can revisit the > issue, assuming there an interest and a benefit of using VC++ 8.0 can be > quantified. > > On 5-Jan-07, at 10:48 PM, Edin Kadribasic wrote: > >> I looked around at other projects and everyone seems to be using VC++ >> 6.0 for their builds (Active state, apache, ...) which eliminates all >> the hassle with bundling C runtime, etc. >> >> So I think the best thing for us would be to stick to the good old C >> compiler for making the Windows distro. > > Ilia Alshanetsky -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
