Which compiler for the Win32 port ?
Joshua D. Boyd
jdboyd at cs.millersville.edu
Tue May 22 17:18:57 CEST 2001
On Tue, 22 May 2001, Xavier Marchesini wrote:
> On Mon, May 21, 2001, Gildas Bazin wrote:
> > I'm not really keen on using anything else than Mingw32, and I suppose the
> > other people involved would also like to keep using their favorite
> > compiler. So unless the VideoLan team objects to this, we'll have to
> > support all these compilers.
> My opinion is that we SHOULD use only one compiler. That's why I
> proposed Bcc, because it's free (not as MSVC), and your compiler is not
> very widespread (well, that's the first time I heard of it) - and cross
> compiling isn't very easy.
> That's why I think we must use only one compiler. I can have a license
> for MSVC, so I can use it, there are no problems with it. Gildas, can
> you work with Visual ?
I don't use Windows much. When I have used Windows, I've used all of the
mentioned compilers (bcc, mingw32, and msvc). In my opinion, bcc is a
pain. I realize that people like it because it is free and easy to set
up, but it does some things in strange ways.
MSVC is OK, but it costs money, which could be an obsticle.
mingw32 on the other hand is also free. Actually, minw32 is the only free
one of the ones discussed here. Bcc just costs no money. You still are
constrained in what you can do with it.
I feel that mingw32 gets along better with the microsoft platform than bcc
does, plus mingw32 is based on gcc so it offers much more compatibility
with the unix codebase.
However, if possible, compatibility with all compilers should be
maintained. This will help keep the code in a clean state that can easily
be moved from platform to platform.
However, my opinion doesn't really count for much since I haven't really
made any additions to the vlc project. I'm just commenting on years of
More information about the vlc-devel