32
edits
(Reinventing the wheel?) |
No edit summary |
||
(2 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
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] | |||
:The talk function of this wiki is hardly used. Consider using the Octave mailing-lists if you want more feedback than only by me ;-) Sure, I just marked the page as outdated, that no one gets the idea it actually builds a state-of-the art Octave. If you want to maintain this page, feel free to do so and remove the badge of the top of the page. [[User:Siko1056|Siko1056]] ([[User talk:Siko1056|talk]]) 07:04, 20 January 2020 (PST) | |||
:: Thanks, I fully agree with keeping the warning. The wording has just been [[Special:Diff/12571|edited]]. [[User:Ederag|Ederag]] ([[User talk:Ederag|talk]]) 07:29, 20 January 2020 (PST) |
edits