From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) id JAA32024; Mon, 26 Nov 2001 09:54:05 +0100 (MET) X-Authentication-Warning: pauillac.inria.fr: majordomo set sender to owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr using -f Received: from concorde.inria.fr (concorde.inria.fr [192.93.2.39]) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) with ESMTP id JAA31968 for ; Mon, 26 Nov 2001 09:54:04 +0100 (MET) Received: from postfix2-1.free.fr (postfix2-1.free.fr [213.228.0.9]) by concorde.inria.fr (8.11.1/8.10.0) with ESMTP id fAQ8s3106912 for ; Mon, 26 Nov 2001 09:54:04 +0100 (MET) Received: from N7YYB (nas-cbv-2-31-208.dial.proxad.net [213.228.31.208]) by postfix2-1.free.fr (Postfix) with SMTP id 071B02D7; Mon, 26 Nov 2001 09:54:03 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <007301c17659$0ae17840$060000c0@N7YYB> From: "Jean-Marc Eber" To: , "Dmitry Bely" Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Ocaml 3.03 alpha MinGW port Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2001 09:28:46 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3155.0 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3155.0 Content-Type: text/plain; boundary="=-=-="; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr Precedence: bulk There have been some interesting postings on this list about a MinGW port of the OCaml Compiler. The attached patch was textually large but conceptually simple. I'm really not a specialist about this topic, but have now (or in a near future) to choose between possible Windows "technologies" (Visual C, Cygwin, MinGW) for an OCaml program (only a console mode stuff in my case). Could anybody explain to me why a MinGW isn't *always* preferable to a Cygwin one (use of the same compiler, GCC, MinGW being more "direct" Windows without an indirection layer, not speaking about licensing problems, etc....). I understand well that the Caml Team wants probably to maintain a MS C version of the OCaml implementation, but wanted to ask the Team if they have some ideas about the future of Cygwin/MinGW ports. Isn't a MinGW port, in the medium term, preferable to a Cygwin one ? Or do I miss a point ? Jean-Marc Eber LexiFi ------------------- Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs FAQ: http://caml.inria.fr/FAQ/ To unsubscribe, mail caml-list-request@inria.fr Archives: http://caml.inria.fr