> >position (I do as well - e.g. plugin
> incompatibility)
> >
> >
> I've heard this mentioned a few times but never
> could get any
> specifics. What exactly is the issue with our
> MinGW-built binaries and
> "plugin incompatibility"?
If I remember correctly, there are differences
(perhaps subtle, perhaps not) between MinGW and MSVC
regarding:
1) Calling conventions
2) How C++ class VTABLEs are supposed to look like
(C++ ABI)
3) How templatetized classes (eg. UT_Vector, UT_Map)
expand
Of course, MinGW should behave like MSVC does, and
AFAIK they're striving to that end.
This all amounts to a MinGW-built AbiWord not being
able to load MSVC-built plugins and vice-versa. Of
course, this is largely my fault for hastily slapping
a plugin architecture on top of 4 year old C++ code
(and, consequentially, why things like COM exist).
This is also why moving to a stable API/ABI C plugin
architecture would be a win for us as a project. Of
course, that's a lot of work, and is easier said than
done.
Best,
Dom
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Read only the mail you want - Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard.
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
Received on Mon Dec 20 21:29:27 2004
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon Dec 20 2004 - 21:29:27 CET