Re: Make.exe for Cygwin

On 25.02.2015 13:32, Ashod Nakashian wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 3:26 AM, Matúš Kukan <matus.kukan@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.