Georg Baum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Am Samstag, 18. März 2006 17:18 schrieb Michael Gerz: > > Abdelrazak Younes wrote: > > > > I was maybe not clear... Please do the change for mingw also. > > Oh, I thought you were using cygwin. How did you compile qt? It should > work if you compile it with -mms-bitfields. > > > It is wise to remove the option for mingw? I think we are linking > > against a gettext and libiconv version that was (most likely) built by > > MSVC or another Non-MinGW compiler. > > Exactly that was my reason to remove it for cygwin and not for mingw: On > cygwin we assume that every library was compiled with the cygwin gcc > compiler, but on mingw we assume that libraries are compiled by MSVC or > gcc with -mms-bitfields. > > Sorry to be so pedantic here, but I really want to understand this issue > before doing any change.
Georg, I compile LyX with mingw as a target using cygwin. Cygwin has a minimal support for mingw as they use it only for compiling their setup.exe installation tool. Indeed, the only supported library is libz. I had to compile every library I needed for building LyX, and it turned out that I only needed Qt, aspell, and libiconv. Nothing more. So, given that those libraries don't use -mms-bitfields, I think it is safe avoiding it. Moreover, if those libraries don't use -mms-bitfields and you enforce it, problems arise (see Abdel case). I think it is easier to add -mms-bitfields to CPPFLAGS (if needed) than hacking some m4 file or editing Makefiles to remove it. Anyway, that's my 2 cents... -- Enrico
