Re: Native compilation on Windows, was Re: Bootstrap Compilation Speed

[Phillip Lord]

Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> writes:

>> From: Phillip Lord <phillip.lord@russet.org.uk>
>> Cc: dieter@duenenhof-wilhelm.de, corwin@bru.st, emacs-devel@gnu.org
>> Date: Sat, 22 Jan 2022 12:40:10 +0000
>> 
>> Because there is no i686 any more. You could install them both
>> together.
>
> In the "official" binaries, there's no i686, because MinGW64 basically
> tossed support for that.  But mingw.org's MinGW still supports it, so
> a user could theoretically build such an Emacs, or ask someone else to
> build it, and then install it alongside the 64-bit one.
>
> And then there could be a Cygwin build, which will be installed into a
> separate subdirectory of libexec, even though it's a 64-bit build.
>
> So I think there's a good reason to keep the architecture
> subdirectory.

If there were such a thing, my guess is that they would install it
somewhere entirely different. But it adds no complexity, so I am easy
either way.


>> The zip file doesn't bring any expectations. It just unpacks where
>> every
>> you want it, and doesn't install any short cuts. You get the same
>> Emacs
>> but all the directories are clearly different. In that sense, the
>> zip
>> file is equivalent to a portable app. The installer version is
>> not. The
>> latter is what most people would be expecting.
>
> I provided my opinions, but since I'm not the one who will do the
> work, feel free to disregard them.


Likewise! I think we have had a good discussion of the pros and
cons. The final decision can rest with Dieter and Corwin.


Phil