On Sat, 13 Oct 2012, Hendrik Leppkes wrote:
On Sat, Oct 13, 2012 at 8:14 PM, Måns Rullgård <[email protected]> wrote:
Hendrik Leppkes <[email protected]> writes:
On Sat, Oct 13, 2012 at 7:46 PM, Derek Buitenhuis
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 13/10/2012 1:29 PM, Måns Rullgård wrote:
I don't really like calling the OS msvc. That is the compiler. How
about "windows"?
By that logic, shouldn't we also call mingw32 "windows"?
Yeah, technically its the same OS, and the configuration how to create
shared libraries doesn't belong in a OS section, but a toolchain
section - but thats being done for like every OS, because in most
cases there is an assumption that there is only one wide-spread
compiler/linker for that target OS.
The way (shared) libraries are built is usually dictated much more by
the OS than by the specific compiler. It is, after all, the OS that in
the end will be loading them. Windows is the odd one out here with at
least three totally different schemes in common use.
If you look at the other ones, the settings are very much per OS and
hardly per compiler at all. Symbian is a prime example, building with
gcc yet needing a raft of special flags.
In any case, i would suggest going with something as simple as
"windows" or "win32" to stick with microsofts short-form :p
I'm fine with win32 as well. Is the 64-bit Windows also called win32?
Win64 is used sometimes when you want to stress the difference, but
its the same OS in 64-bit, does it make sense to separate here? Maybe
stick to "windows" and keep the 32/64 out of it to avoid confusion?
Some of the target_os cases have * to match different settings, I can set
it to win*.
// Martin
_______________________________________________
libav-devel mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.libav.org/mailman/listinfo/libav-devel
