|Message: Re: compilation problems of 4.9.5.p02 on XP/cmake/mingw: #ifdef _WIN32 instead of WIN32||Not Logged In (login)|
Click on the Forum title, e.g. on the "Forums by Category" page, to read a sequence of postings to the Forum and its threads all in one page. If you are only interested in one thread or the thread following a specific posting, click the thread or the posting, which takes you to a smaller page, which contains only the part you are interested in and may be easier to navigate.
Messages are "chained" if there are only replies at the first level, i.e. 1/1.html, 1/1/1.html etc. In case of "chained" messages the message number is replaced by the icon and there is no indentation.
Inline: Display the subject line only or also the text of the posting(s); for the choice "All" the "Outline" choices are switched off.
|1||0||1||no text / full text of posting|
|2||1||All||text for level 1 only / text for All postings|
Outline: Choose the depth of the posting thread, successive toggle controls provide increasing detail.
|1||2||1||2 levels / 1 level (original posting)|
|2||3||2||3 levels / 2 levels|
|3||3||All||3 levels / all levels (all postings)|
On Fri, 28 Jun 2013 20:12:42 GMT, Mojca Miklavec wrote: > Yes, I'm fully aware that MinGW is not officialy supported, but I'm > willing to play with it and test. I might not be able to solve all the > problems by myself and it would hardly make any sense to maintain a list > of patches needed for compilation with MinGW on my own machine. > > I applied six patches and got stuck at what CMake reported as 100% (just > before the end, with OpenGL-related linking), so maybe one additional > patch would already be sufficient for the code to compile (which doesn't > guarantee that it would also work, of course). > > The question is: would it be OK to apply tiny patches and make small > steps towards some (even if unsupported) compatibility with MinGW? Or is > this out-of-question? (This would have meant a lot of work before > introduction of CMake-based compilation and Qt, but should be much > easier now.) > > I'm willing to test Cygwin in parallel with MinGW, but only if this > could lead to more/better patches. > > With other words: does "no support" mean that any question or request > for a patch that could benefit MinGW would be ignored by default? Or > just that you cannot guarantee that someone will be able/willing to > reply? I hope it's the first one ...
What we won't (or rather can't, given our time and resource limitations) do is fix any reported problems on unsupported systems ourselves. However, you are welcome, and encouraged, to supply patches yourself. We are happy to integrate these - with the proviso that they won't be tested on the requested platform, and that they will be rejected if the changes break tests on our supported platforms. Integration of a platform based patch also does not imply support is then ongoing for that platform.
If you want to send patches, these should be submitted though the Geant4 Bugzilla System. You should supply patches for individual components (in the "Components" list) so that the maintainer of that component gets the information directly.
Hope that clarifies things,