On Thu, 2 Nov 2023 at 10:35, sebb wrote:
> On macOS, CC and CXX have the same definition, so it's not surprising
> there was no difference in your testing.
Face palm. Sorry
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail:
On Thu, 2 Nov 2023 at 10:12, Peter Hull wrote:
>
> On Wed, 1 Nov 2023 at 23:54, Alex Remily wrote:
> > I believe it is for cross compilation, owing to the comments in the
> > makefile:
> > # for cross-compilation on Ubuntu, install the g++-mingw-w64-x86-64 package
> I think you could also argue
On Wed, 1 Nov 2023 at 23:54, Alex Remily wrote:
> I believe it is for cross compilation, owing to the comments in the
> makefile:
> # for cross-compilation on Ubuntu, install the g++-mingw-w64-x86-64 package
I think you could also argue that the other way around - ie. those are
the packages you
I believe it is for cross compilation, owing to the comments in the
makefile:
# for cross-compilation on Ubuntu, install the g++-mingw-w64-x86-64 package
# for cross-compilation on Ubuntu, install the g++-arm-linux-gnueabi package
# for cross-compilation on Ubuntu, install the
On Wed, 1 Nov 2023 at 12:53, Gary Gregory wrote:
>
> Maybe there are cross compilation issues... I don't know for sure.
But CXX is only used for the link phase.
> What I
> do know is that it quite tricky and time consuming to get everything just
> right when I do a release from multiple
Maybe there are cross compilation issues... I don't know for sure. What I
do know is that it quite tricky and time consuming to get everything just
right when I do a release from multiple machines to get macOS, Linux, and
Windows binaries correctly compiled, linked, and packaged up. I hope
nothing
Crypto currently only uses .c files, and the Makefile uses CC
throughout, except for creating the object output. [This has been the
case since the initial release.]
Using CXX (C++) for the link does not make sense to me - surely CC can
create the object equally well?
It would simplify builds
