From: Duft Markus (Markus.Duft_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-09-20 01:48:17
Maybe you want to give RC1 a try, just for testing, not productive. I really need people using it, and telling me if theres something wrong. I've gotten _no_ feedback until now, and it's the second version now ;o) I'm only using it myself but for myself (here at my company of course) i got a list of 115 projects now compiling with it, including many open source projects.
Von: boost-bounces_at_[hidden] [mailto:boost-bounces_at_[hidden]] Im Auftrag von Russell Mok
Gesendet: Dienstag, 19. September 2006 21:42
Betreff: Re: [boost] wgcc 2.0 RC1 released
I have been using interix for roughly 2 years, so I am definitely interested in wgcc (not RC1 though).
There were a few reasons for me to choose interix over Cygwin. Licensing/cost was one. Tools not expecting "\r\n"
at the end of line or '\' as root directory (including many in-house scripts) also worked under interix with minimal porting efforts. Besides, interix is on top of the windows kernel, not win32 API. Hence it should be 'lighter' than Cygwin.
On the other hand, interix is not available on the 'Home'
edition of windows.
David Abrahams wrote:
> "Duft Markus" <Markus.Duft_at_[hidden]> writes:
> > Hi again!
> > For all interested in native Windows binaries built with Autotools
> and > mnay other interesting things:
> I'm not sure whether this is on-topic for Boost; it seems of somewhat
> borderline relevance. However, now that you've started the thread,
> one obvious question leaps to mind: why would anyone want to use wgcc
> in lieu of Cygwin or MinGW gcc?
> Dave Abrahams
> Boost Consulting
> Unsubscribe & other changes:
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk