Le vendredi, 24 juillet 2015 à 11:58, David Allsopp a écrit : > Sorry - poor context-switching on my part! However, my comment still stands - > mingw and msvc are not operating (sub-)systems – even the sub-splitting in > that function still gives you operating systems. Having something akin to the > comp_type seems better to me than (ab)using the notion of os.
Ok. > This may play differently in an OPAM which fully supports cross-compilation, > but would you expect that os variable to be the same across all switches? Since that os variable should formally be taken for host-os no. > One thing that is certainly interesting (and which I'm doing in my Windows > port of OPAM[*]) is being able to use all four native Windows ports in the > same OPAM installation. Yes, there should be no problem with this I think. > comparch = msvc -> immediately .obj, .lib, .dll, .exe (and Microsoft > invocation rules) > comparch = cc -> immediately gives you .o and .a and then os <> Win32 gives > you .so or .dll+.exe (and CC/GCC invocation rules) You meant comp_type I guess. Ok thanks, that's clear. It seems effectively less contrived than introducing an os for mingw. > [*] which is, of course, a) not finished and b) not necessarily going to be > merged! You should try to sync and plot with Louis, I'm sure he's interested. Best, Daniel _______________________________________________ opam-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ocaml.org/listinfo/opam-devel
