[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Further on MEX
From: |
John W. Eaton |
Subject: |
Re: Further on MEX |
Date: |
Wed, 7 Jan 2009 15:38:05 -0500 |
On 7-Jan-2009, David Bateman wrote:
| John W. Eaton wrote:
| > On 7-Jan-2009, David Bateman wrote:
| >
| > | Better to go for a fully matlab compatible MEX ABI
| > | and fall under the same argument as distribution of MEX code as source
| > | code.. That is of course if we can't just consider that the current
| > | Octave MEX ABI isn't already separate enough from Octave and closer to
| > | matlab that it doesn't already fall under the same argument.
| >
| > What do you mean by ABI? Do you mean that we should change Octave so
| > that a MEX file built with Matlab can run in Octave?
| >
|
| ABI = Application Binary Interface
Yes, I know, but I wanted to know what you specifically meant with
regard to Octave. At what level of detail? Do you expect Octave to
be able to be able to run a MEX file compiled with (any version of)
Matlab? Do you expect Matlab to be able to run a MEX file compiled
with Octave? I'm not sure that is practical. That seems like one of
the areas where compatibility is just too much of a PITA.
jwe
- Re: Further on MEX, (continued)
- Re: Further on MEX, Aravindh Krishnamoorthy, 2009/01/07
- Re: Further on MEX, David Bateman, 2009/01/07
- Re: Further on MEX, Aravindh Krishnamoorthy, 2009/01/07
- Re: Further on MEX, David Bateman, 2009/01/07
- Re: Further on MEX, John W. Eaton, 2009/01/07
- Re: Further on MEX, David Bateman, 2009/01/07
- Re: Further on MEX, John W. Eaton, 2009/01/07
- Re: Further on MEX, David Bateman, 2009/01/07
- Re: Further on MEX, Thomas Weber, 2009/01/08
- Re: Further on MEX, John W. Eaton, 2009/01/27
- Re: Further on MEX,
John W. Eaton <=
- Re: Further on MEX, David Bateman, 2009/01/07
- Re: Further on MEX, John W. Eaton, 2009/01/07
- Re: Further on MEX, David Bateman, 2009/01/06
Re: Further on MEX, Michael Goffioul, 2009/01/04