Re: Open Source does not mean easily re-compile-able

On Fri, 03 Jan 2025 18:15:25 GMT
scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) gabbled:

Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> writes:

On Thu, 1/2/2025 11:29 AM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>

Why would you expect the link step to require a lot of
memory? The linker builds an elf executable from the contents
of ELF object files, one ELF section at a time.  It doesn't
construct the entire ELF executable in memory before  writing it out.
 

>
It's based on experience, not imagination.
>
I've built Thunderbird on both Windows and Linux.
It was the Windows build that left a bad taste.
Once you repeatedly have build failures during linking,
you are always looking for it.
>

>
Ah, well windows.   You need not elaborate.
>
I've been fortunate to have never built software in a
microsoft environment (aside an optical jukebox driver
for NT3.51 once on a contract job - even then I did
all the editing on unix and just compiled and tested
on the windows box).

I did a Windows C++ job for a year. I still can't believe how complicated
Visual Studio (2017 IIRC) made the most basic things such as setting library
and include paths which were buried 2 or 3 levels down in some sub menu not
to mention all the "project" BS which forced a certain structure on to your
code filesystem layout which I didn't particularly want. Also the fact that
console and GUI apps require a totally different project setup and boiler plate
code from the start is just mind boggling.