Re: LuaBinaries and the RTL DLL for 5.2

[steve donovan <steve.j.donovan@...>]

On Sat, Jan 16, 2010 at 4:29 AM, Antonio Scuri <scuri@tecgraf.puc-rio.br> wrote:
>   I guess I have enough information to move on. But before adopting
> mscvrt.dll I have to make some tests here. Because although vc8 brought us
> the manifest problems, it was stable. Moving to vc9 is more or less a known
> ground. So I’ll give mingw a try.

The VC runtime is a ever changing target. For instance, the LfW
standard (vc8) is no longer very compatible with the compiler that
most Windows devs would be using now.  (They tend to upgrade to the
latest and greatest, often precisely because of incompatible runtimes;
technically dubious strategy, brilliant for forcing upgrades ;))

If the idea was to provide a good solid Lua implementation, then I
would totally agree with Ryan; much less fuss to use GCC.  For a set
of binaries that can be used with the MS tools, then vc9 is a good
compromise. It's easy to say 'use a free compiler' but devs get very
attached to their  existing tools, which are actually quite addictive.
 It's like asking a Java dev to forsake Eclipse.

But then if someone is embedding Lua in their MS project, then they
may as well just compile it themselves, very straightforward.

So I remain slightly confused.  BTW, I will try get the Lua 5.1 test
suite working on Windows so that we can evaluate the latest GCC
versions more thoroughly. For instance, whether the more aggressive
optimizations are without issues.

steve d.