On 5/6/2010 9:54 PM, Adam Kennedy wrote: > On 7 May 2010 11:20, Trent Nelson <[email protected]> wrote: >> Bill definitely has a valid point. You'd be surprised at what kind of crazy >> builds you can end up with for some open source projects when you attempt to >> build them on Windows with their out-of-the-box settings (assuming their >> release even compiles on Windows; OpenSSL has the odd release every now and >> then that just flat out doesn't compile out-of-the-box on Windows). >> >> I remember how much trouble I had trying to get the out-of-the-box Windows >> builds of BerkeleyDB and TclTk to work with Python. BerkeleyDB was using >> the most esoteric compiler and linker flags that I've ever come across, and >> the resulting binary, especially in 64-bit builds, just flat out wasn't >> suitable for linking against. > > I concur on the state of 64-bit compilation, it's horrible at the moment. > > Some of this is because MinGW doesn't support it (and the fork that > does is still maturing) so the GCC-focused Open Source developers need > some time to work out bugs.
Well that's issue is neatly summarized by the win64 choice of 64P architecture, which isn't how any other OS structured their x86_64 architecture. So it requires individual developers to trawl through the projects cleaning up assumptions such as sizeof(long) >= sizeof(void *) - and it's not the sort of trivial problem that CoApp can solve on its own. _______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~coapp-developers Post to : [email protected] Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~coapp-developers More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
