Re: libtool and cl

[Earnie Boyd]

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.

Earnie.