[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: Native compilation on Windows, was Re: Bootstrap Compilation Speed

From: Eli Zaretskii
Subject: Re: Native compilation on Windows, was Re: Bootstrap Compilation Speed
Date: Sat, 22 Jan 2022 14:46:31 +0200

> From: Phillip Lord <phillip.lord@russet.org.uk>
> Cc: dieter@duenenhof-wilhelm.de,  corwin@bru.st,  emacs-devel@gnu.org
> Date: Sat, 22 Jan 2022 12:40:10 +0000
> Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> writes:
> >> 
> >> Actually, the "x86_64" is
> >> not needed now, but I guess I left that in for backward compatibility.
> >
> > Why do you think the architecture subdirectory is not needed?
> Because there is no i686 any more. You could install them both together.

In the "official" binaries, there's no i686, because MinGW64 basically
tossed support for that.  But mingw.org's MinGW still supports it, so
a user could theoretically build such an Emacs, or ask someone else to
build it, and then install it alongside the 64-bit one.

And then there could be a Cygwin build, which will be installed into a
separate subdirectory of libexec, even though it's a 64-bit build.

So I think there's a good reason to keep the architecture

> The zip file doesn't bring any expectations. It just unpacks where every
> you want it, and doesn't install any short cuts. You get the same Emacs
> but all the directories are clearly different. In that sense, the zip
> file is equivalent to a portable app. The installer version is not. The
> latter is what most people would be expecting.

I provided my opinions, but since I'm not the one who will do the
work, feel free to disregard them.

reply via email to

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