On 25.02.2015 13:32, Ashod Nakashian wrote: > On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 3:26 AM, Matúš Kukan <matus.ku...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> Nice :-), could we perhaps upload 64bit version to >> http://dev-www.libreoffice.org/bin/cygwin/ too? >> > > Michael has mentioned (above) that the 4.0 is unstable.
actually only 4.0 build for Win32 was unstable for me, the Cygwin 4.0 build didn't crash. > Please see our exchange, we do seem to be in agreement to move away > from lo fork of make and test a more recent (4.1) upstream build. > I'm currently working on making a test binary (32 and 64 bits) > available for internal testing. for a Win32 build there is probably no benefit and all downside to 64-bit since make has a huge graph with lots of pointers so it's just slower and eats more memory. >> I am confused, do people build make themselves or don't use 64bit cygwin. > > I'd hope anyone attempting to build LO will be savvy enough to use > 64-bit cygwin on a 64-bit machine (for performance reasons). > I know I do, and the make binary on dev-www.libreoffice.org, which is > 32-bits, works perfectly fine (so it's not accurate that it won't run > on a 64-bit cygwin, because it's not a cygwin binary, rather it's a > native windows binary). that is true for the Win32 make. the (only) benefit that a 64-bit Cygwin make binary has is that those who want to build 4.3 or earlier releases (which cannot be built with Win32 make) *and* have 64-bit Cygwin installed don't have to build it from source. that is certainly nice to have, but not critical. _______________________________________________ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
