--===============1941649811== Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001636c9252438fbe40494763d8c --001636c9252438fbe40494763d8c Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 I think Andrew said it all. No word to add to it. About compilers: GCC is our free option and the easy way to port libraries currently available only on linux; MSVC is our best chance for platform integration; Intel is not free, not even as in free beer on windows; Borland (AFAIK, and according to http://chadaustin.me/cppinterface.html) is not binary compatible with MSVC. IMHO, we don't have many dependency issues with GCC or MSVC. There is no reason to drop one or other. 2010/11/7 Kevin Krammer > On Sunday, 2010-11-07, Francis Corvin wrote: > > At 2010-11-06 17:00, Thomas Friedrichsmeier wrote: > > >Right now one central problem with having a time gap between the > compilers > > >is that it will cause serious confusion. Suppose MSVC is at 4.5.3, > > >while MinGW is > > >still at 4.4.4. Right now, users will > > >1. select a mirror > > >2. select a compiler (let's suppose user choses MinGW, here) > > >3. select a release (obviously user selects the latest one, i.e. 4.5.3) > > >4. select packages (but our example user will not see *any* packages, > > >since there are no MinGW 4.5.3 packages) > > > > > >What I am suggesting is that users will > > >3. select a release _type_ (stable / unstable / nightly) > > >4. MinGW users will be able to select 4.4.4 packages, MSVC users will > see > > >4.5.3 packages. > > > > To me the whole idea that users should have to select a compiler is > > completely ludicrous. How many decent windows installers ask you that > > sort of question? None. Who cares? No-one, users just want the bloody > > app. Which user can say what compiler was used for this or that > > application outside the KDE world? Developer might care, but let's > > not kid ourselves that it is for any other reason than their own > > preferences. > > AFAIK the main problem is that GCC is like a solitary island that does not > like to cooperate, i.e. it always creates its own ABI not matter what the > platform's C++ ABI is. > > So you end up having to build all dependencies with GCC if you want one > application to be built with GCC. > > Maybe the things that are currently a problem for MSVC can be built with a > different compiler but one that is following the platform standard? > Intel's or Borland's maybe? > > Cheers, > Kevin > -- > Kevin Krammer, KDE developer, xdg-utils developer > KDE user support, developer mentoring > > _______________________________________________ > Kde-windows mailing list > Kde-windows@kde.org > https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-windows > > --001636c9252438fbe40494763d8c Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I think Andrew said it all. No word to add to it.

About = compilers: GCC is our free option and the easy way to port libraries curren= tly available only on linux; MSVC is our best chance for platform integrati= on; Intel is not free, not even as in free beer on windows; Borland (AFAIK,= and according to=A0http= ://chadaustin.me/cppinterface.html)=A0is not binary compatible with MSV= C.

IMHO, we don't have many dependency issues with GCC= or MSVC. There is no reason to drop one or other.

2010/11/7 Kevin Krammer <kevin.krammer@gmx.at>

On Sunday, 2010-11-07, Fr= ancis Corvin wrote:
> At 2010-11-06 17:00, Thomas Friedrichsmeier wrote:
> >Right now one central problem with having a time gap between the c= ompilers
> >is that it will cause serious confusion. Suppose MSVC is at 4.5.3,=
> >while MinGW is
> >still at 4.4.4. Right now, users will
> >1. select a mirror
> >2. select a compiler (let's suppose user choses MinGW, here) > >3. select a release (obviously user selects the latest one, i.e. 4= .5.3)
> >4. select packages (but our example user will not see *any* packag= es,
> >since there are no MinGW 4.5.3 packages)
> >
> >What I am suggesting is that users will
> >3. select a release _type_ (stable / unstable / nightly)
> >4. MinGW users will be able to select 4.4.4 packages, MSVC users w= ill see
> >4.5.3 packages.
>
> To me the whole idea that users should have to select a compiler is > completely ludicrous. How many decent windows installers ask you that<= br> > sort of question? None. Who cares? No-one, users just want the bloody<= br> > app. Which user can say what compiler was used for this or that
> application outside the KDE world? Developer might care, but let's=
> not kid ourselves that it is for any other reason than their own
> preferences.

AFAIK the main problem is that GCC is like a solitary island that doe= s not
like to cooperate, i.e. it always creates its own ABI not matter what the platform's C++ ABI is.

So you end up having to build all dependencies with GCC if you want one
application to be built with GCC.

Maybe the things that are currently a problem for MSVC can be built with a<= br> different compiler but one that is following the platform standard?
Intel's or Borland's maybe?

Cheers,
Kevin
--
Kevin Krammer, KDE developer, xdg-utils developer
KDE user support, developer mentoring

_______________________________________________
Kde-windows mailing list
Kde-windows@kde.org
https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-windows

--001636c9252438fbe40494763d8c-- --===============1941649811== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline _______________________________________________ Kde-windows mailing list Kde-windows@kde.org https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-windows --===============1941649811==--