Re: Building the igc branch on MS-Windows

[Gerd Möllmann]

Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> writes:

>> Because PVEC_OTHER is handled fine now, except whatever w32 does in
>> addition or maybe instead
>
> Then maybe the assertion should be w32-only (if only w32 uses
> PVEC_OTHER; I thought Helmut said he saw the same problem on
> GNU/Linux?).  But removing it completely is not TRT, IMO.  We already
> have quite a lot of code which was disabled under HAVE_MPS, and at
> least some of that looks like workarounds for problems that got "low
> priority".  I'm not sure this is a good way of making progress here,
> especially since some of those #ifdef's could potentially cause
> problems elsewhere.

We've made progress since then. The code now uses a new PVEC type for
module references, and so we should be fine in all cases since the old
GC code doesn't do anything special for PVEC_OTHER. Only remaining check
that could to be done is if the scroll bar struct on w32 contains a
pointer to something that must be traced, but I find that highly
unlikely.

> I think we should methodically try to solve every problem we bump
> into, without any priorities.  Priorities are fine when we want to
> make a POC, to see if this is workable.  I think we are way past that
> point, so leaving unsolved problems is no longer a useful methodology.

Yeah, except for the native compilation, which I currently prioritize
for mysefl. I haven't made progress there, alas.

But otherwise, I must say I'm kind of impressed by us :-).

>> (has it modules?)
>
> Of course.  In a Windows build I have:
>
>   load-suffixes
>    => (".dll" ".elc" ".el")

Ah, ok. Thanks! DLLs, of course...