Thank you for this clarification, neither did I know that it was written
by Brian Ripley (although now this seems to be obvious) nor that the
advice is already 10 years old. Thus please allow me to re-phrase my
question:
Dear Prof. Ripley:
1, Why did you propose the option "/MT" instead of option "/MD"?
2, Will the proposed settings to build the DLL still be valid for the
upcoming Windows 7?
Best regards
Christian
_._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._
C.h.r.i.s.t.i.a.n S.t.r.a.t.o.w.a
V.i.e.n.n.a A.u.s.t.r.i.a
e.m.a.i.l: cstrato at aon.at
_._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._
Duncan Murdoch wrote:
On 15/10/2009 5:01 PM, cstrato wrote:
Dear Duncan,
In your document "readme.packages.txt" you have a very helpful
chapter on "Using Visual C++".
Please allow me to ask you one question: Why do you propose the
option "/MT" instead of option "/MD"?
(To my knowledge usually option "/MD" is used when compiling programs
with VC++.)
I didn't write that: I've got no experience with VC++. It was Brian
Ripley who wrote it, and the log says he wrote it in 1999. So I'd
guess that it isn't bad advice (having lasted 10 years without a
change), but I guess it's possible that it is no longer optimal.
Duncan Murdoch
______________________________________________
R-devel@r-project.org mailing list
https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
