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

Would that make everyone happy?

It is OK with me.


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?


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
to the given .dif files.  All this patch does is sets the library
option to -ML if true_static is on and threads is not specified or -MT
true_static is specified and threads is specified.  It will also append
"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
(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
know.  We have customers who use various bare-bones Windows
who want it this way.  Personally, I prefer to link my compiler
executable against the static non-threaded library because it does not
require thread support and I prefer a solid executable that can be run
any Windows 95 and up platform without having to deal with DLL versions
paths and registries and all that other jazz.


Ed Day

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]