Re: Re: SV: [xml] windows binary with different calling conventions

[Gustaf Räntilä <opera home se>]

The primary platform is not windows, but unix yes. But your port is for
windows right? :-)
Daniel shouldn't do this, I couldn't agree more. It's non of his
business and it would be more than ironic if he did.
I can do this if you want, but ain't that familiar with how to declare
it on function pointers etc.. And would you patch it to the headers you
ship with your binary release? If not, then I'll just cdecl the
necessary functions I use not publishing it.
Maybe I'm completely wrong here, about stdcall and cdecl, I just thought
it was a task pretty obvious for you to do if you want many more users
of libxml on windows. Believe me, I'd prefer libxml over any other
non-open library since I gpl myself, and I've tried xerces-c but I
didn't like it.
I just wanna spread libxml to a wider audience (read: I personally wanna
use libxml in an stdcall application), so be indulgent with my rude
irony :-)

/Gustaf

-----------------

Gustaf Räntilä wrote:
> No, the problems are the header files, not his binaries. They work
> either way. The difference is if every implementer of libxml should be
> forced to edit the header files, or use a specific calling conventions
> even though they practically wouldn't need to. It's only a question
> about who'll do the job. Igor, Daniel or hundreds of "innocent"
> developers :-)

Nono, the question is a different one. Will *you* do it, and get it 
approved by the majority here, or will hundreds of innocent developers 
do it, each on their own?

I won't do it without a very good reason. And I'll pour my precious beer

down the toilette if Daniel does it either way :-)

Ciao,
Igor