[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: libtool and cl

From: Earnie Boyd
Subject: Re: libtool and cl
Date: Sun, 30 Mar 2003 12:50:07 -0500
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.2.1) Gecko/20021130

Charles Wilson wrote:

With respect to Bob, Gary's decision to remove it was correct at the time. Unmaintained, untested code should NOT simply be carried along because "it might be needed later". It would have made development on actual used and tested platforms [e.g. cygwin/mingw] for the past 21 months much harder, for very little benefit. The old code will always be there -- in CVS archives -- if anybody wants to up-port it. But no one did, and no one was available, and apparently no one needed it until now. That's 21 months of pain, avoided. I'm cool with that.

Amen, preach it brother.  My sentiments exactly.

Also wrt Bob, concerning mingw vs cl: IMO, if you're using cl and relying on its non-standard extensions to C and C++, then you are obviously not trying to write portable code. In that case, you should simply use the MSVC support for building DLLs and static libs, and NOT use libtool or autoconf or automake at all. Since you're not worried about portability, use the tools MS provides to make your life easier; why go thru the pain of creating a *build* system that is portable, when your *code* is not? The autotools are about portability.

Well the autotools are to try to make portability easier for the non-portable parts of various environments. I don't see this any different from any of the rest of the support we do based on system specifications.

I suggest for good examples for support for cl that you look at what Mo DeJong has done with SourceNavigator.


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]