On Sat, Oct 13, 2012 at 8:14 PM, Måns Rullgård <[email protected]> wrote: > Hendrik Leppkes <[email protected]> writes: > >> On Sat, Oct 13, 2012 at 7:46 PM, Derek Buitenhuis >> <[email protected]> wrote: >>> On 13/10/2012 1:29 PM, Måns Rullgård wrote: >>>> I don't really like calling the OS msvc. That is the compiler. How >>>> about "windows"? >>> >>> By that logic, shouldn't we also call mingw32 "windows"? >>> >> >> Yeah, technically its the same OS, and the configuration how to create >> shared libraries doesn't belong in a OS section, but a toolchain >> section - but thats being done for like every OS, because in most >> cases there is an assumption that there is only one wide-spread >> compiler/linker for that target OS. > > The way (shared) libraries are built is usually dictated much more by > the OS than by the specific compiler. It is, after all, the OS that in > the end will be loading them. Windows is the odd one out here with at > least three totally different schemes in common use. > > If you look at the other ones, the settings are very much per OS and > hardly per compiler at all. Symbian is a prime example, building with > gcc yet needing a raft of special flags. > >> In any case, i would suggest going with something as simple as >> "windows" or "win32" to stick with microsofts short-form :p > > I'm fine with win32 as well. Is the 64-bit Windows also called win32? >
Win64 is used sometimes when you want to stress the difference, but its the same OS in 64-bit, does it make sense to separate here? Maybe stick to "windows" and keep the 32/64 out of it to avoid confusion? _______________________________________________ libav-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.libav.org/mailman/listinfo/libav-devel
