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 OAA01190; Mon, 26 Nov 2001 14:35:26 +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 OAA01186 for ; Mon, 26 Nov 2001 14:35:24 +0100 (MET) Received: from relay.rinet.ru (relay.rinet.ru [195.54.192.35]) by concorde.inria.fr (8.11.1/8.10.0) with ESMTP id fAQDZM118901 for ; Mon, 26 Nov 2001 14:35:22 +0100 (MET) Received: (from uucp@localhost) by relay.rinet.ru (8.11.6/8.11.6) with UUCP id fAQDZGP04015 for caml-list@inria.fr; Mon, 26 Nov 2001 16:35:16 +0300 (MSK) X-Envelope-To: caml-list@inria.fr Received: from bely.stormoff (BELY) [192.168.0.10] by stormoff with esmtp (Exim 2.05 #1 (Debian)) id 168Lsy-0000VN-00; Mon, 26 Nov 2001 16:33:24 +0300 X-Comment-To: Xavier Leroy To: caml-list@inria.fr Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Ocaml 3.03 alpha MinGW port References: <007301c17659$0ae17840$060000c0@N7YYB> <20011126120302.A1982@pauillac.inria.fr> From: Dmitry Bely Date: 26 Nov 2001 16:34:49 +0300 In-Reply-To: <20011126120302.A1982@pauillac.inria.fr> Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.0808 (Gnus v5.8.8) XEmacs/21.4 (Civil Service (Windows)) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr Precedence: bulk Xavier Leroy writes: > > 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....). > > The full Cygwin provides a rather complete Unix emulation, hence the > OCaml Cygwin port supports the debugger, all of the Unix module, Yes, MinGW port lacks that (as well as MSVC one -- that's Win32 without fork() and other stuff). MSVC and MinGW ports support absolutely the same set of OCaml libraries. > and > (I believe) the LablGTK GUI -- all things that are missing in the > OCaml MinGW port, if I remember correctly. Hmm, IIRC standard 3.03 alpha contains only LablTk, not LablGTK. Yes, with MinGW patch LablTk can be compiled out of the box. As for LablGTK, it also should not be a problem -- gtk/Win32 does not rely on Cygwin... > > 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 ? > > The situation is quite simple, really: > > - We can't support three different Windows port of OCaml; the current > two are already too much. MinGW port in fact do not need any extra support; it uses the same sources as MSVC one (and even links with MS-supplied C runtime library msvcrt.dll), and shares Make/Configure environment with all other Unixes. I see no real problem here... > - Every time I mention this fact on this list, we get replies of the form > "I can't live without the Visual C based port of OCaml -- > I'm doing real industrial work, and everything gcc-related is > just amateur work" > OR > "I got a Windows machine because that's the company policy, > but I really do all my work within the Cygwin environment and > don't want to hear about anything else". > > Draw your own conclusions... OK, I do not insist. It really may not worth your efforts. I just thought that for people, who cannot/does not want to buy expensive and multimegabyte MSVC but need C compiler under Win32 (for custom runtimes, CamlIDL etc), native Win32 port of OCaml, compiled with gcc compiler, would be very convenient... Hope to hear from you soon, Dmitry ------------------- 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