On Thursday, 8 October 2015 12:28:36 UTC+2, Jeroen Demeyer wrote: > > On 2015-10-08 12:22, Bill Hart wrote: > > Currently, projects like Gap require far too much posix to make it easy > > to build them any other way but with the posix layer, and then it is no > > longer a native application. > > There is one thing I don't understand in this whole discussion: what's > the problem really with the POSIX layer? Why do you insist on a *native* > application? Getting Sage to work properly as Cygwin/MSYS2 application > would already be a great achievement, so why not aim for that? > > It's very simple. Julia cannot access non-native dlls. And in fact, neither can other native binaries.
The Julia devs explain, "Loading and using 2 different C runtime libraries (the posix cygwin dll, and the non-posix msvcrt used by mingw-w64) from inside the same application is unlikely to work" Therefore there would in fact be little overlap between SageMath requirements (which include posix) and Julia requirements (which exclude posix). I suppose there would be some benefit in having libraries fix the long->long long issues. But it's nowhere near all the way to a native application. SageMath would indeed benefit. But that doesn't help me or others working with native apps. Bill. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sage-devel" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
