I think Andrew said it all. No word to add to it.<div><br></div><div>About compilers: GCC is our free option and the easy way to port libraries currently available only on linux; MSVC is our best chance for platform integration; Intel is not free, not even as in free beer on windows; Borland (AFAIK, and according to <a href="http://chadaustin.me/cppinterface.html">http://chadaustin.me/cppinterface.html</a>) is not binary compatible with MSVC.</div>
<div><br></div><div>IMHO, we don't have many dependency issues with GCC or MSVC. There is no reason to drop one or other.</div><div><br><div class="gmail_quote">2010/11/7 Kevin Krammer <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:kevin.krammer@gmx.at">kevin.krammer@gmx.at</a>></span><br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;"><div class="im">On Sunday, 2010-11-07, Francis Corvin wrote:<br>
> At 2010-11-06 17:00, Thomas Friedrichsmeier wrote:<br>
> >Right now one central problem with having a time gap between the compilers<br>
> >is that it will cause serious confusion. Suppose MSVC is at 4.5.3,<br>
> >while MinGW is<br>
> >still at 4.4.4. Right now, users will<br>
> >1. select a mirror<br>
> >2. select a compiler (let's suppose user choses MinGW, here)<br>
> >3. select a release (obviously user selects the latest one, i.e. 4.5.3)<br>
> >4. select packages (but our example user will not see *any* packages,<br>
> >since there are no MinGW 4.5.3 packages)<br>
> ><br>
> >What I am suggesting is that users will<br>
> >3. select a release _type_ (stable / unstable / nightly)<br>
> >4. MinGW users will be able to select 4.4.4 packages, MSVC users will see<br>
> >4.5.3 packages.<br>
><br>
> To me the whole idea that users should have to select a compiler is<br>
> completely ludicrous. How many decent windows installers ask you that<br>
> sort of question? None. Who cares? No-one, users just want the bloody<br>
> app. Which user can say what compiler was used for this or that<br>
> application outside the KDE world? Developer might care, but let's<br>
> not kid ourselves that it is for any other reason than their own<br>
> preferences.<br>
<br>
</div>AFAIK the main problem is that GCC is like a solitary island that does not<br>
like to cooperate, i.e. it always creates its own ABI not matter what the<br>
platform's C++ ABI is.<br>
<br>
So you end up having to build all dependencies with GCC if you want one<br>
application to be built with GCC.<br>
<br>
Maybe the things that are currently a problem for MSVC can be built with a<br>
different compiler but one that is following the platform standard?<br>
Intel's or Borland's maybe?<br>
<br>
Cheers,<br>
Kevin<br>
<font color="#888888">--<br>
Kevin Krammer, KDE developer, xdg-utils developer<br>
KDE user support, developer mentoring<br>
</font><br>_______________________________________________<br>
Kde-windows mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Kde-windows@kde.org">Kde-windows@kde.org</a><br>
<a href="https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-windows" target="_blank">https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-windows</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br></div>