I got very little through February for various reasons, but I'm back on it. I think static linking is the best way as well, including to avoid newer builds of J having new dependencies that make J not work on machines where it previously did, but if so it probably can't be GMP for licensing reasons. My plan's just to get something working, with the expectation that various issues like this will be easy to decide later.
------- Original Message ------- On Wednesday, March 9th, 2022 at 1:21 PM, Raul Miller <[email protected]> wrote: > On Tue, Jan 25, 2022 at 8:38 PM Julian Fondren [email protected] wrote: > > > I'll get it done. > > How is this proceeding? > > (I have been tempted to tackle this integration myself, but between > > laptop failures and some other issues, I have not gotten around to it, > > yet.) > > I will say this: > > Because of how J is typically installed, I think that the right > > approach here would be to statically link against libgmp. Dynamic > > links are appropriate in a variety of cases, but not this one, not for > > the initial port. (Once libgmp is supported, it would be possible to > > build J against a dynamically linked libgmp, but while that might be > > right for some people, most people are not going to want to deal with > > the consequences of that approach.) > > Anyways, ... I might yet get around to tackling this by myself, but if > > you're making good progress, I should probably either just wait or try > > to pitch in on issues which are eating too much of your time. > > Thanks, > > -- > > Raul > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
