[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: On elisp running native

From: Eli Zaretskii
Subject: Re: On elisp running native
Date: Tue, 31 Dec 2019 05:34:17 +0200

> From: arthur miller <address@hidden>
> CC: "address@hidden" <address@hidden>, "address@hidden"
>       <address@hidden>, "address@hidden" <address@hidden>,
>       "address@hidden" <address@hidden>
> Date: Mon, 30 Dec 2019 22:03:43 +0000
> With apps that don't have native ports I ment *nix applications that are not 
> written with portability in mind. For
> example Firefox, Apache or similar are already written to run native, while 
> say binutils or some other typical
> posix apps, usually need extra portability layer to compile on win32. 
> mingw/cygwin/msys usually provide
> enough of that portability layer for applications to be "relatively easily" 
> ported over to native win32. In that
> context I don't really see what gap wsl fills. 

I'm not sure we should continue this, as it seems to be wandering
off-topic, but again, FTR, MinGW provides very little to aid porting
applications that weren't written to be portable.  A few Posix
headers, a small number of library functions, and that's about it.
The bulk of the job of porting an application to native Windows is on
the shoulders of whoever does the porting.  E.g., look at the stuff in
Emacs's w32.c: it all is needed with MinGW.

> I just wanted to express my concern for not leaving mative win32 port as a 
> secondary citizen in favor of wsl. 

That depends on contributors to Emacs.  If they keep the native
Windows port alive, it will remain.

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]