gcc mingw64 compiler installer
Robin
compiler in the form on an installer for windows 7?
Thanks,
-Robin
Lew
> I was wondering does anyone know how I can get the mingw 64 bit
> compiler in the form on an installer for windows 7?
Huh. I did not know there was a mingw Java compiler, but I hardly see the
point when the Sun/Oracle and the IBM Javas are free.
Perhaps Google can help you.
--
Lew
Lew
> I was wondering does anyone know how I can get the mingw 64 bit
> compiler in the form on an installer for windows 7?
>
One would expect that all things MinGW ("Minimalistic GNU for
Windows") would be found at
<http://www.mingw.org/>
which is also where the first hit on Google for "mingw 64-bit Java
compiler" will lead you.
More precisely, that first hit links to
<http://www.mingw.org/wiki/MinGW>
which talks about what is included in the download.
And yes, it indicates that there is a "gcc-java - Java compiler" in
the suite, and yes, they sport a Windows installer for their Windows-
specific project on their own download page for their "Minimalistic
GNU for Windows". Surprise!
I find it peculiar that they say,
"Unlike other ports of GCC to Windows, the runtime libraries are not
distributed using GNU's General Public License (GPL)."
How do they get away with that?
--
Lew
John B. Matthews
<81c19a5e-0efc-4bac...@u26g2000yqu.googlegroups.com>,
Lew <l...@lewscanon.com> wrote:
I have no MinGW experience, but the GPL applies to redistribution. If
the public domain MinGW runtime only targets your customer's existing
msvcrt and your code doesn't link to any GPL code, then the license for
your executable built with the gcc tool chain should be entirely your
call.
As a related example, library generic units included with the FSF GNAT
compiler typically use a GNAT Modified General Public License:
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNAT_Modified_General_Public_License>
I see that libgcj offers a similar exception:
<http://gcc.gnu.org/java/faq.html>
--
John B. Matthews
trashgod at gmail dot com
<http://sites.google.com/site/drjohnbmatthews>
Lew
Lew wrote:
>> MinGW ("Minimalistic GNU for
>>
>> I find it peculiar that they say, "Unlike other ports of GCC to
>> Windows, the runtime libraries are not distributed using GNU's
>> General Public License (GPL)."
>>
>> How do they get away with that?
John B. Matthews wrote:
> I have no MinGW experience, but the GPL applies to redistribution. If
> the public domain MinGW runtime only targets your customer's existing
> msvcrt and your code doesn't link to any GPL code, then the license for
> your executable built with the gcc tool chain should be entirely your
> call.
That answers how *I* would get away with it, but not how *they* do. Unless
they aren't actually redistributing GNU code.
I guess if they use no actual GNU source or binaries, then the mere fact that
they call themselves a "GNU" product has nothing to do with GPL obligations.
So one concludes that they must have a clean-room implementation of their
"port... of GCC to Windows".
I guess because I haven't researched it in detail yet, and probably never
will. GCJ sucks big time, so I don't imagine MinGW's version would be better,
and besides, Java is already free from at least two sources and becoming more
and more open-source every day from at least one, so I ask again,
rhetorically, why bother with third-rate substitutes?
--
Lew
John B. Matthews
wrote:
> On 08/06/2010 08:11 PM,
> > In article
> > <81c19a5e-0efc-4bac...@u26g2000yqu.googlegroups.com>,
> > Lew<l...@lewscanon.com> wrote:
>
> Lew wrote:
> >> MinGW ("Minimalistic GNU for
> >>
> >> I find it peculiar that they say, "Unlike other ports of GCC to
> >> Windows, the runtime libraries are not distributed using GNU's
> >> General Public License (GPL)."
> >>
> >> How do they get away with that?
>
> John B. Matthews wrote:
> > I have no MinGW experience, but the GPL applies to redistribution.
> > If the public domain MinGW runtime only targets your customer's
> > existing msvcrt and your code doesn't link to any GPL code, then
> > the license for your executable built with the gcc tool chain
> > should be entirely your call.
>
> That answers how *I* would get away with it, but not how *they* do.
> Unless they aren't actually redistributing GNU code.
I'll take issue with the phrase "get away with it." I see it simply as
applying the terms of the relevant license(s).
> I guess if they use no actual GNU source or binaries, then the mere
> fact that they call themselves a "GNU" product has nothing to do with
> GPL obligations. So one concludes that they must have a clean-room
> implementation of their "port... of GCC to Windows".
It looks like they distribute plenty of GNU code under the GPL, and we
are free to use it as desired. The burden shifts to us when we look to
distribute compiled code. Linking to the MinGW runtime or libgcj are
specifically excepted:
<http://www.mingw.org/license>
<http://gcc.gnu.org/java/faq.html>
> I guess because I haven't researched it in detail yet, and probably
> never will. GCJ sucks big time, so I don't imagine MinGW's version
> would be better, and besides, Java is already free from at least two
> sources and becoming more and more open-source every day from at
> least one, so I ask again, rhetorically, why bother with third-rate
> substitutes?
I have to agree. It's not my _favorite_ knife, but I keep it in my
tackle box for an emergency.
Robin
compiler, there doesn't appear to be any java compiler for 64bit
systems until further notice,
-Robin
Lew
Robin wrote:
> thanks for all the help guys, thinking I will just buy a java [sic]
> compiler, there doesn't appear to be any java [sic] compiler for 64bit
> systems until further notice,
Huh?
The free ones from Oracle and IBM, just to name two, work fine on 64b systems.
Perhaps you refer to compilers that build native EXEs? There's GCJ, which is
certainly available for 64b systems, but there remains the aforementioned
compatibility issues. I suspect any native-EXE compiler will suffer from
compatibility issues. I'd stick with the standard Javas if I were in your shoes.
Which one(s) are you contemplating buying?
--
Lew
Before you criticize someone, walk a mile in his shoes. That way you're a
mile away and you have his shoes.
- Emo Philips (paraphrased)