Re: Further on MEX

[David Bateman]

John W. Eaton wrote:
> On  7-Jan-2009, David Bateman wrote:
>
> | John W. Eaton wrote:
> | > On  7-Jan-2009, David Bateman wrote:
> | >
> | > | Better to go for a fully matlab compatible MEX ABI 
> | > | and fall under the same argument as distribution of MEX code as source 
> | > | code.. That is of course if  we can't just consider that the current 
> | > | Octave MEX ABI isn't already  separate enough from Octave and closer to 
> | > | matlab that it doesn't already fall under the same argument.
> | >
> | > What do you mean by ABI?  Do you mean that we should change Octave so
> | > that a MEX file built with Matlab can run in Octave?
> | >   
> | 
> | ABI = Application Binary Interface
>
> Yes, I know, but I wanted to know what you specifically meant with
> regard to Octave.  At what level of detail?  Do you expect Octave to
> be able to be able to run a MEX file compiled with (any version of)
> Matlab?  Do you expect Matlab to be able to run a MEX file compiled
> with Octave?  I'm not sure that is practical.  That seems like one of
> the areas where compatibility is just too much of a PITA.
>   
That would be a nice goal and the ultimate proof that the MEX ABI can't 
be under the GPL. I suppose we should try for it, but I'd say its a 
where is becomes too much of a PITA we don't bother..

D.


--
David Bateman                                address@hidden
35 rue Gambetta                              +33 1 46 04 02 18 (Home)
92100 Boulogne-Billancourt FRANCE            +33 6 72 01 06 33 (Mob)