 |
lua-l archive |
|
|
||
|
steve donovan wrote:
On Wed, May 21, 2008 at 4:55 AM, Ross Berteig <Ross@cheshireeng.com> wrote:I do have some minor concerns about the dependency on the new C runtime DLL, but I suspect I have to suck it up and actually install a Visual C newer than VC6, and/or figure out the recipe for linking from MinGW to the new C runtime ;-)It would be cool if you shared your findings, because it is becoming a common issue with those of us who prefer mingw, (or simply just don't have the money for a commercial compiler?). There is that free version of the MS compiler, although I don't know if it does proper optimized release builds. steve d.
MinGW is happier if you avoid VC DLLs altogether, and simply build Lua from source using MinGW (or just use the Win32_mingw*_lib LuaBinaries packages). You end up with a rock-solid, much smaller set of Lua files that have no external dependencies. So small is it, that I always statically link Lua when building under MinGW these days.
200K is a small price to pay for no headaches. You never have to worry about versioning, and Lua modules can simply be dropped in the application directory.
The LuaBinaries MinGW packages offer only static libs (liblua5.1.a), but you can build Lua as a DLL with MinGW as well.
I was always perplexed as to why LuaBinaries didn't use MinGW builds for the Win32_bin packages... This being a open-sourced effort and all. Though I suspect it is a 'path of least resistance' issue.
BTW, MinGW 4.3 is now released (alpha though). Perhaps LuaBinaries should be updated?
http://sourceforge.net/forum/forum.php?forum_id=820558