compiling EV: problem with win 64 and/or latest cl.exe version?

Marc Lehmann schmorp at schmorp.de
Wed Oct 14 22:01:19 CEST 2009


On Wed, Oct 14, 2009 at 08:13:28PM +0100, James Mansion <james at mansionfamily.plus.com> wrote:
> link against them. You're living a fantasy if you think the Windows C  
> ABI changes much - even

In my "fantasy" world binaries work, however, in your "reality" they
don't. I take my "fantasy" world over yours every day, thank you very much
:-)

Take note at how many different and binary incompatible libcs exist.
Obviously you have little clue about C on windows if you claim it doesn't
change much, it changes with almost every compiler release by microsoft...

> to the extent that versions of compiled MFC DLLs survive plenty of revs.

Microsoft has slowed down in recent years, true, but the C ABI changed
many times more often in the last ten years than, say, on GNU/Linux (where
it didn't change once in the last decade, as oposed to microsoft, which
managed to release at least 6 incompatible libc versions in the same
timespan - just google and count them...).

> but so far you're just waving your usual anti-MS bull around. Again. I  

Informed people call it "facts". Shall I call you a microsoft-fanboy
for spreading around obvious bull about gcc? Unlike microsoft, gcc
simply can't define its own ABI and has to use whatever it finds on the OS.

So anybody claiming gcc changed its C ABI is obviously confused about the
distinction between the compiler (which under M$ bundles part of the C
implementation for their OS, so for windows people it makes sense if you
they have no clue, as microsoft waters it down for them) and the operating
system (which defines the C ABI).

Or maybe let's phrase it like this: coming from windows, it doesn't
surprise me that "stable ABI" means one or two years for you, while for
me, it means, like, a decade.

If stability for you means breaking compatibility every two years, then
windows indeed has a "stable" C ABI.

It's just that I prefer a bit more stability before calling something
stable.

> really think you need
> to provide better evidence than that your software might not work with  
> the new compiler, there's

The only one claiming my software doesn't work with a newer version of
the compiler is you - why should I feel the need to provide evidence for
something that I feel clearly is not the case? I see no reason why it
shouldn't work with a newer compiler.

I am pretty sure EV works with newer versions of microsoft C as well
(ok, the floating point implementation in msvc is abysmal, does it still
"truncate" 255.5 to 256?).

However, your mail indicates that you didn't even *understand* what I was
pointing out. Since I think I was explaining what to do rather well, I
guess you just don't want to understand.

> a number of possible explanations, and an ABI cockup is just one of  
> them. Not least when the

I was trying to help simon by pointing out the most obvious problem,
namely binary incompatibility.

Your mail was spreading stable C ABI bullshit and "gcc is so bad but I
have no clue what I am talking about". I am sorry, but that's your issue,
as I can get it working as long as I follow my own hints, and others
obviously can, too.

> ABI might be defined in terms of a non-C calling convention and may  
> require explicit alignment
> and padding selections.

I think you are confused still, I am talking about the C ABI, of which the
calling convention is just a tiny part.

> I really think you need to find out exactly what has gone wrong before  
> pointing a finger.

Sorry to disappoint you, but there really is not such a need at all for me. I
pointed you into the most likely direction for the problems.

For you to jump in to what has so far been a potentially helpful and
constructive conversation with your bullshit claims is totally uncalled
for, and more importantly, will not help anybody.

The binary incompatibilities exist, people hit them daily, not just with
EV (which is why many binary dlls on windows get distributed in a version
for each major compiler release separately), and trying to silence the
facts because you are such a fan of microsoft and can't bear when other
people shove the facts in your face is just so pointless.

Or in other words, your drivel just wastes the time of people who actually
try to make things work and help each other. You are a troll.

*plonk*

(And unlike you, I can even format my e-mail in a readable way - do others
a favour and learn how to write readable e-mails with lines resembling
something like a common line length instead of changign the line length on
every line).

-- 
                The choice of a       Deliantra, the free code+content MORPG
      -----==-     _GNU_              http://www.deliantra.net
      ----==-- _       generation
      ---==---(_)__  __ ____  __      Marc Lehmann
      --==---/ / _ \/ // /\ \/ /      pcg at goof.com
      -=====/_/_//_/\_,_/ /_/\_\



More information about the libev mailing list