On 12 January 2013 14:33, Gabriel Kerneis wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 12, 2013 at 01:31:34PM -0800, Jonathan Kotker wrote:
> > Is there anything else I should be including? The above files seem to be
> > the only ones the tool needs. Or is there a better way to go about this
> > entire process?
>
> It l
On Sat, Jan 12, 2013 at 01:31:34PM -0800, Jonathan Kotker wrote:
> Is there anything else I should be including? The above files seem to be
> the only ones the tool needs. Or is there a better way to go about this
> entire process?
It looks good to me. CIL should be more modular, avoid these hard
To clarify my intent: The target users of my tool will be using Windows,
and as I already have compiled CIL for my own purposes, I wanted users to
be able to use the core necessary files, without having to recompile all of
CIL. (This would, among other things, impose extra requirements for my
tool.
