Talk:Octave and separate toolchain: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
(Reinventing the wheel?) |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
Isn't [[MXE]] Octave doing the job of compiling the whole toolchain, even if there exists one on a Linux distribution? At least this was the point I found annoying and decided to create a more "lightweight" solution especially for the 64 bit indexing. https://github.com/siko1056/GNU-Octave-enable-64 | Isn't [[MXE]] Octave doing the job of compiling the whole toolchain, even if there exists one on a Linux distribution? At least this was the point I found annoying and decided to create a more "lightweight" solution especially for the 64 bit indexing. https://github.com/siko1056/GNU-Octave-enable-64 | ||
- The page needs transposition to current versions, but nothing changed much. | |||
This page shows how to build any gcc toolchain, with perfect control of any details, which is not covered by mxe IIURC. | |||
Agreed that mxe looks simpler and should be recommended. [Ederag] | |||
Revision as of 13:06, 20 January 2020
Isn't MXE Octave doing the job of compiling the whole toolchain, even if there exists one on a Linux distribution? At least this was the point I found annoying and decided to create a more "lightweight" solution especially for the 64 bit indexing. https://github.com/siko1056/GNU-Octave-enable-64
- The page needs transposition to current versions, but nothing changed much. This page shows how to build any gcc toolchain, with perfect control of any details, which is not covered by mxe IIURC. Agreed that mxe looks simpler and should be recommended. [Ederag]