Re: Octave & Fortran continued

[Michael Goffioul]

On Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 1:37 PM, Benjamin Lindner <address@hidden> wrote:
> 1) file size - IMO this *does* matter.

Any idea about the size overhead when not using using shared versions
of libgcc and libstdc++?

> 2) design
> 3) throwing exceptions across dlls requires a shared libstd++ (this is a
> bit too simply put but is the general idea)

Might indeed be interesting. Is this needed to make octave run correctly?
If not, then I'd be tempted to not use shared versions of libgcc and libstdc++
as it produces maintenance overhead (besides the traditional ./configure &&
make && make install).

> :) If I found a non-libtool way to build, I used this one. It yields the
> same results much faster and with less overhead.

That's what I did at first. Then I found that the time I spent to tweak
every single build system to make it work with MSVC was higher
than just using libtool (hacked, but

>
> You mentioned that you had to re-libtoolize many packages. This way you
> need to touch the sources anyway, and I need to touch the libtool code again
> for shared libgcc suport, so one way or another it is not really
> an "out-of-the-box" build, is it?
>
> But, hey, it's only naming, so what's the fuzz about it. The import library
> must use the lib prefix, otherwise the linker won't find it, and the dll can
> use the same prefix - here it does not matter which prefix you use.
>
> benjamin
>