[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Further on MEX
From: |
Aravindh Krishnamoorthy |
Subject: |
Further on MEX |
Date: |
Sun, 4 Jan 2009 15:27:14 +0530 |
Dear,
It was quite embarrassing to find that the MEX issue pointed out in
the earlier mail (octave-bugs) were fixed about six months ago on the
development archive.
Unrelated, here are some specific questions related to the MEX support:
1. [source-code] There are two lists for maintaining shared libraries:
src/dynamic-ld.cc: octave_shlib_list, octave_mex_file_list, while one
would have sufficed. This one (single list, if it existed) could be
extended to support Matlab styled 'loadlibrary', etc. functions. Why
are two lists maintained?
2. [feature-req] What is the take on supporting 'mexext' extensions
(mexw32 for Win32, mexglx for Linux32, etc.) ?
3. [feature-req] What is the take on supporting 'loadlibrary', etc
functions in Octave?
Also on a related note:
4. [matter-of-taste] I'd have liked a liboctavemex.so (with mx... MEX
functions) released under LGPL, but I'm not sure how strong supporters
of software-freedom and GPL the Octave team is. Would you pls. comment
on this?
Based on your response, I'd like to take up items 1-4 above.
Yours sincerely,
Aravindh Krishnamoorthy
- Further on MEX,
Aravindh Krishnamoorthy <=
- Re: Further on MEX, Søren Hauberg, 2009/01/04
- Re: Further on MEX, David Bateman, 2009/01/04
- Re: Further on MEX, Aravindh Krishnamoorthy, 2009/01/05
- Re: Further on MEX, John W. Eaton, 2009/01/05
- Re: Further on MEX, David Bateman, 2009/01/05
- Re: Further on MEX, Aravindh Krishnamoorthy, 2009/01/06
- Re: Further on MEX, John W. Eaton, 2009/01/06
- Re: Further on MEX, Aravindh Krishnamoorthy, 2009/01/06
- Re: Further on MEX, Jaroslav Hajek, 2009/01/06
- Re: Further on MEX, David Bateman, 2009/01/06