From: Norman V. <nh...@ca...> - 2001-06-23 12:44:25
|
Wolfram Kuss writes: > >Michael wrote: > >>[...] compiling, and all that > >We should definately have a Windo$ binary. > >>Seen from my POV, a complete stand-alone version (preferably compiled with >>MingW, if you get that to work) would be fine. > >Before we decide that IMHO we should look at the sizes and speed of >fgfs compiled with CygWin/MingW/MSVC etc. I don't know whether there >are/could be major differences in runtime speed (fps). Size is of >second importance, since the binary is small compared to the base >package. We should use a "release build", not a "debug build". I would suspect that the MSVC compiled version to be marginally faster in that it usually generates better floating point code. However since the runtime performance is so overwhelmingly determined by the GFX card 'stability' and 'ease of installation' are IMHO the important criteria. All of the native compilers < Borland, MSVC, MingW > are probably equal in these respects. Since we are 'real close' to supporting the MSVC compiler this is my first choice and creating a MingW one a poor second. Not because I don't want to do the work but because it requires a fairly 'arcane' system to build that may not be easily duplicated, whereas I suspect that once we have the MSVC capability anyone with MSVC could build the release with a single 'click'. The one strong point the MingW approach has is that 'theororetically' it should work with our current gnu autoconfig mechanism. Cheers Norman |