[jitsi-dev] Re: [jitsi~svn:8253] Recompile LocalhostRetriever.dll with mingw instead of VC++ for Windows x


#1

Dear Seb,

I'm asking the following out of curiosity:

+CFLAGS = -shared $(JNI_HEADERS) -D_JNI_IMPLEMENTATION

Is it OK that I write JNI_IMPLEMENTATION and you write
_JNI_IMPLEMENTATION? Could you please explain why it works both ways?

trunk/lib/native/windows/LocalhostRetriever.dll
trunk/lib/native/windows-64/LocalhostRetriever.dll

I know I asked before... but why don't you strip these two? I mean
there're non-minor differences in size so I'd personally strip and
then run them through testing rather than never strip them.

+CC = gcc -m32

Is -O2 implied? In other words, do you think it's just the same
whether I explicitly specify it or not?

Best regards,
Lyubomir

···

On Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at 12:15 PM, <s_vincent@java.net> wrote:


#2

Dear Seb,

I'm asking the following out of curiosity:

+CFLAGS = -shared $(JNI_HEADERS) -D_JNI_IMPLEMENTATION

Is it OK that I write JNI_IMPLEMENTATION and you write
_JNI_IMPLEMENTATION? Could you please explain why it works both ways?

I follow http://www.mingw.org/node/41. http://www.java.net/community-item/building-w32-jni-dlls-gcc-0 tells also to use _JNI_IMPLEMENTATION. So personally I don't know if it has an impact but all of our native libraries seems to work well.

trunk/lib/native/windows/LocalhostRetriever.dll
trunk/lib/native/windows-64/LocalhostRetriever.dll

I know I asked before... but why don't you strip these two? I mean
there're non-minor differences in size so I'd personally strip and
then run them through testing rather than never strip them.

Oh yes I have forgotten. Thanks.

+CC = gcc -m32

Is -O2 implied? In other words, do you think it's just the same
whether I explicitly specify it or not?

I made the new Makefile quickly so I forgot also to add optimization.

I will address all of these issues soon in next commit.

Thanks.

Regards,

···

On 16/02/2011 11:37, Lyubomir Marinov wrote:

On Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at 12:15 PM,<s_vincent@java.net> wrote:

--
Seb

Best regards,
Lyubomir


#3

Thanks, Seb! BTW, http://www.mingw.org/node/41 says
_JNI_IMPLEMENTATION_ :wink: Anyway.

···

On Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at 12:49 PM, Sebastien Vincent <seb@sip-communicator.org> wrote:

On Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at 12:15 PM,<s_vincent@java.net> wrote:

+CFLAGS = -shared $(JNI_HEADERS) -D_JNI_IMPLEMENTATION

Is it OK that I write JNI_IMPLEMENTATION and you write
_JNI_IMPLEMENTATION? Could you please explain why it works both ways?

I follow http://www.mingw.org/node/41.


#4

Lyubomir
There is also this:

http://lists-archives.org/mingw-users/17661-correct-compiler-options-for-jni-using-mingw.html

Robert

···

On Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at 11:04 AM, Lyubomir Marinov <lubo@sip-communicator.org> wrote:

On Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at 12:49 PM, Sebastien Vincent > <seb@sip-communicator.org> wrote:

On Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at 12:15 PM,<s_vincent@java.net> wrote:

+CFLAGS = -shared $(JNI_HEADERS) -D_JNI_IMPLEMENTATION

Is it OK that I write JNI_IMPLEMENTATION and you write
_JNI_IMPLEMENTATION? Could you please explain why it works both ways?

I follow http://www.mingw.org/node/41.

Thanks, Seb! BTW, http://www.mingw.org/node/41 says
_JNI_IMPLEMENTATION_ :wink: Anyway.

--
Robert Onslow
XLegal Limited