[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Octave & Fortran continued
From: |
John W. Eaton |
Subject: |
Re: Octave & Fortran continued |
Date: |
Mon, 12 Jan 2009 11:37:50 -0500 |
On 11-Jan-2009, Michael Goffioul wrote:
| On Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 1:37 PM, Benjamin Lindner <address@hidden> wrote:
| > 1) file size - IMO this *does* matter.
|
| Any idea about the size overhead when not using using shared versions
| of libgcc and libstdc++?
|
| > 2) design
| > 3) throwing exceptions across dlls requires a shared libstd++ (this is a
| > bit too simply put but is the general idea)
|
| Might indeed be interesting. Is this needed to make octave run correctly?
| If not, then I'd be tempted to not use shared versions of libgcc and libstdc++
| as it produces maintenance overhead (besides the traditional ./configure &&
| make && make install).
I wasn't thinking about exceptions when I posted earlier. If it is
true that shared libstdc++ is needed for exceptions to work correctly,
then I think we will need it to be a shared library.
jwe
- Re: Octave & Fortran continued, (continued)
Re: Octave & Fortran continued, Benjamin Lindner, 2009/01/08
- Re: Octave & Fortran continued, Michael Goffioul, 2009/01/08
- Re: Octave & Fortran continued, Benjamin Lindner, 2009/01/09
- Re: Octave & Fortran continued, Michael Goffioul, 2009/01/09
- Message not available
- Re: Octave & Fortran continued, Michael Goffioul, 2009/01/11
- Re: Octave & Fortran continued, Michael Goffioul, 2009/01/11
- Re: Octave & Fortran continued, John W. Eaton, 2009/01/12
- Re: Octave & Fortran continued,
John W. Eaton <=
- Re: Octave & Fortran continued, Benjamin Lindner, 2009/01/12
- Re: Octave & Fortran continued, Michael Goffioul, 2009/01/12
- Re: Octave & Fortran continued, Benjamin Lindner, 2009/01/13
- Re: Octave & Fortran continued, Michael Goffioul, 2009/01/13
- Re: Octave & Fortran continued, Christopher Hulbert, 2009/01/13