Re: [xml] wrong compiler settings for MSVC in makefile

["Ed Day" <eday obj-sys com>]

> Would that make everyone happy?

It is OK with me.

Regards,

Ed Day

----- Original Message -----
From: "Igor Zlatkovic" <igor zlatkovic com>
To: <Mark_Vakoc peoplesoft com>; <eday obj-sys com>
Cc: <xml gnome org>
Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2003 4:29 PM
Subject: Re: [xml] wrong compiler settings for MSVC in makefile


> Okay, then let's discard this approach altogether and introduce an
> option which lets one specify the exact compiler switch to be used for
> the runtime. Something like
>
>    .\configure runtime=/MD
>
> should be the default. Of course, only the Makefile.msvc would make use
> of that switch. Other makefiles, such as Makefile.mingw, would ignore
> it. We could also make it an error to specify runtime if
>    compiler != msvc
> Would that make everyone happy?
>
> Ciao,
> Igor
>
> Mark_Vakoc peoplesoft com wrote:
> > I don't agree with part of the patch.  I often build debug versions of
> > libxml2 but never link against the debug versions of the c runtimes.
> > Adding the 'd' to CCMODE flag should be a seperate option and not the
> > default for a debug build.
> >
> > - Mark
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > I have attached a patch to add a build option to configure.js called
> > "true_static" (for lack of a better name).  I am not sure of the correct
> > format for these patches - these were done using diff -c with output
going
> > to the given .dif files.  All this patch does is sets the library
compile
> > option to -ML if true_static is on and threads is not specified or -MT
if
> > true_static is specified and threads is specified.  It will also append
a
> > "d" to the option if debug is specified.
> >
> > I am not sure what side-effects this will have on other parts of the
> > libraries.  All I can say is that everything works fine for the parts I
use
> > (which is mostly the DOM tree stuff) when I build it this way.
> >
> > As to the comments on the usefulness of this patch, the answer is I
don't
> > know.  We have customers who use various bare-bones Windows
implementations
> > who want it this way.  Personally, I prefer to link my compiler
application
> > executable against the static non-threaded library because it does not
> > require thread support and I prefer a solid executable that can be run
on
> > any Windows 95 and up platform without having to deal with DLL versions
and
> > paths and registries and all that other jazz.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Ed Day