On Sun, Oct 04, 2015 at 10:50:24AM -0600, Jeremy Steward wrote: > I suppose as one of the few people who has used / uses CHICKEN on > Windows I should chime in :)
Thanks for this! > On 02/10/15 12:57 PM, Peter Bex wrote: > > The reason behind this seems to be that Blas itself is a bit of an > > old-fashioned library[...] > > BLAS is problematic not because it is old, but because it is made > available through multiple implementations. For example, BLAS can be > made available through Intel's MKL, ATLAS, OpenBLAS, and of course the > original netlib.org reference implementation. Keep in mind BLAS is > often implemented in Fortran and then exported to C, so depending on > your implementation you might also need to expose `-lgfortran` to csc > as well. Thanks for explaining this. It's good to know about that. Do none of the BLAS implementation offer pkg-config support, though? Even if you only support one BLAS library, it can still be installed in several different locations, depending on the platform and packaging system used. > Agreed, please do not give up. Currently the way I use CHICKEN on > Windows is through Cygwin, because it is currently the easiest way to > install and link things (using plain MinGW64 is an exercise in > patience, IMO). Hopefully the midipix project (http://midipix.org/) > picks up, which will provide a much better way to use CHICKEN (and > other C libraries / programs) on Windows. Wow, this Midipix project sounds very promising! Definitely something to keep an eye on, so we can (eventually?) get rid of the mess that is cygwin & mingw. Cheers, Peter
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ Chicken-users mailing list Chicken-users@nongnu.org https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users